"The Pursuit of Assange"
(Pursuit: तलाश/पीछा; the act of following someone or something to try to catch him, her, or it)
The U.S. must take a more benign (सौम्य/दयालु; pleasant and kind) view of WikiLeaks and drop Assange’s prosecution (अभियोग; the process of accusing someone in a court of law of committing a crime)
The decision by a British district judge to block the extradition of Julian Assange to the U.S. on the grounds of his mental health is a temporary setback (झटका; something that causes delay or stops progress) to America’s efforts to try the WikiLeaks founder under its law on spying charges.
In her ruling, judge Vanessa Baraitser said “the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive (कष्टप्रद/उत्पीड़क; cruel and unfair) to extradite (अपराधी देना; to make someone return for trial to another country or state where they have been accused of doing something illegal) him to the U.S.” While it is a small victory for his lawyers and supporters, their fight to prevent his extradition (प्रत्यर्पण; the return of someone accused of a crime to the country where the crime was committed) and secure his freedom is far from over.
Click Here To Take CLOZE Tests
Judge Baraitser has blocked his extradition only on medical grounds because she thought his possible detention (कैद/हिरासत; the act or condition of being officially forced to stay in a place) in isolation (एकांत; to separate something from other things with which it is connected or mixed) in the U.S. would likely result in a suicide attempt. She rejected the defence lawyers’ arguments that Mr. Assange’s prosecution was politically motivated and violated his rights to free expression. She also observed that his conduct “took him outside the role of investigative journalism”, agreeing with the U.S. authorities’ assertion (दावा; to say that something is certainly true) on WikiLeaks.
Mr. Assange, who is wanted in the U.S. on multiple charges of breaking espionage laws (जासूसी कानून; a rule under which one is allowed to discovers secrets, especially political or military information of another country) and conspiring (साजिश रचना; secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal) to hack a military computer, has repeatedly defended his organisation’s operations, terming them public interest journalism.
Click Here To Take READING COMPREHENSION Tests
U.S. prosecutors allege (आरोप लगाना; to state that something bad is a fact without giving proof) that he helped former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning crack an encrypted password and download classified information, the leaking of which endangered (खतरे में डालना; to put someone or something at risk or in danger) American intelligence sources. The Justice Department also claims that he had conspired with hackers to obtain classified information.
It is ironic (विडंबनात्मक; strange, or funny because of being very different from what you would usually expect) that the U.S., which takes pride in its freedoms and commitment to protecting human rights, is relentlessly (अथक/लगातार; in an extreme way that continues without stopping) pursuing a man who exposed some of the worst rights violations by the American military. Until WikiLeaks released the classified documents that Ms. Manning downloaded, the world believed that the July 2007 killings of a dozen Iraqis, including two Reuters (an international news agency founded in London in 1851 by Paul Julius Reuter "1816-99") staffers, happened in a fire-fight with a U.S. aircrew.
Click Here To Take ACTIVE-PASSIVE Tests
But video footage by WikiLeaks showed the aircrew laughing after they killed 12 innocent people. WikiLeaks files also exposed the killings of hundreds of Afghan civilians by U.S. forces. These were incidents the U.S. had swept under the carpet (गुप्त रखना; to hide a problem or try to keep it secret instead of dealing with it), and WikiLeaks had undoubtedly done public service, allowing the questioning of the conduct of war by the world’s supreme military power.
Instead of accepting its military’s mistakes, the U.S. went after the messenger. In the U.S., sensitive or leaked information published by the news media is protected under the First Amendment, a reason why the Obama administration decided against prosecuting WikiLeaks. But the Trump administration reversed tack.
The new Bidenled government must rethink its predecessor’s (पूर्ववर्ती/पूर्व अधिकारी; someone who had a job or a position before someone else) approach. It is unfortunate (दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण; unlucky or having bad effects) that a fresh bail application filed by Mr. Assange’s lawyers was rejected by a British judge on Wednesday. The British legal system should take a benign view of his condition and cause.
0 Comments