pawelk1986 wrote:
Tequila wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
I wonder on what basis Brits judged him for treason, though he had never been a British subject, he was citizen of USA and had German citizenship granted to him by Hitler, so if anyone should judge him for treason, this should be America not Britain.
He held a British passport.
He has British passport, but he wasn't British per se.
According to Wiki at his trial the defense argued (more or less) what you're saying- that he wasnt a British citizen-therefore he cant be charged with treason.
The prosecution prevailed by arguing what Tequila said - that he carried a British passport- plus other factors.
Essentially- he made a career out of palming himself off as being a British citizen so he owed allegience to the crown. Thats the arguement that the prosecution won with. He got the benifits- so he is liable for penalties as well.
Makes sense to me.
If the defense had won- would he have been liable for treason against the USA?
Interesting question.
Does helping an enemy nation undermine an allied nation (but not directly our own nation) constitute treason? Probably. But then you cant try a person twice for the same crime. So we could not have legally indicted him upon his hypothetical aquittal by the brits ( I suppose).
But - if you want to expend sympathy toward someone- spend it on the girl labeled 'Tokyo Rose', and not on Lord Haw Haw. She was more of a real scapegoat than was Lord Haw Haw. But thats another can of worms.