News
Qatar-Mediated Prisoner Exchange: Five Americans And Five Iranian Prisoners Freed

(CTN NEWS) – Five American detainees and five Iranian detainees were freed in a prominent prisoner exchange facilitated by Qatar.
The American ex-prisoners disembarked from an aircraft at Doha International Airport in the Qatari capital on Monday, following their arrival from Tehran. Subsequently, they boarded a flight destined for the United States.
According to Iran’s Press TV, two out of the five Iranians who were held in US prisons arrived in Iran after transiting through Qatar.
Meanwhile, the remaining three released Iranians have opted not to return to Iran, with two choosing to remain in the United States and one proceeding to another foreign country.
These five released Iranians were granted clemency by US President Joe Biden.
Earlier on Monday, Nasser Kanani, the spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry, explained that the two Iranian former detainees who decided to stay in the US did so “due to their prior history of residing there.”
Press TV identified the two individuals who returned to Iran as Mehrdad Moein Ansari and Reza Sarhangpour Kafrani.
Who are the American prisoners?
- Morad Tahbaz: Arrested in 2018 along with eight other Iranian conservationists. They had been using cameras to track critically-endangered wild Asiatic cheetahs, but were accused of spying. Denied the charge but sentenced to 10 years in prison
- Siamak Namazi: Dubai-based oil executive arrested in 2015. His elderly father, Baquer, was detained the following year, after Iranian officials allowed him to visit his son. Both sentenced to 10 years in prison for “co-operating with a foreign enemy”, which they denied. Iran let Baquer leave for medical treatment in 2022
- Emad Shargi: Detained in 2018 while working for an Iranian venture capital fund. Released on bail and later told he had been cleared of spying charges. Informed by a court in 2020 that he had been convicted in absentia and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Released ahead of an appeal and reportedly detained in 2021 while trying to cross Iran’s western border illegally
- The two others wish to remain anonymous
Release of Iranian Assets and American Detainees Marks Diplomatic Progress
As a result of the agreement between the United States and Iran, $6 billion worth of Iranian assets, previously held in South Korea, have been unfrozen, leading to the initiation of the prisoner exchange.
“Fortunately, Iran’s frozen assets in South Korea have been released, and we hope that today these assets will be fully under the control of the government and the nation,” stated Kanaani earlier.
Iran’s central bank chief, Mohammad Reza Farzin, subsequently appeared on state television to confirm the receipt of over 5.5 billion euros (equivalent to $5.9 billion) deposited in accounts located in Qatar.
Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi characterized the release of the five American detainees by Tehran as a “purely humanitarian action” and suggested it could pave the way for future humanitarian gestures.
Speaking to journalists upon his arrival in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, he expressed this sentiment.
In response, President Biden welcomed the return of the five American citizens and expressed gratitude to allies who contributed to securing their release.
He mentioned the names of the detainees, including Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz, Emad Sharghi, and two others who preferred to remain anonymous, highlighting the years of hardship they endured before their release.
Biden acknowledged the vital role played by various governments, including Qatar, Oman, Switzerland, and South Korea, in facilitating the process.
Biden Warns U.S. Citizens on Travel to Iran and Addresses Criticisms of Prisoner Exchange
However, Biden also issued a caution to U.S. citizens about the risks of traveling to Iran, emphasizing that Washington couldn’t guarantee their freedom if detained.
The decision to engage in a prisoner exchange with Tehran drew criticism from both Republicans and some Democrats, who voiced concerns that it might encourage further detentions.
Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett noted that the Biden administration consistently prioritized the release of U.S. citizens detained abroad. She highlighted that the opportunity to bring these detainees home was a top priority for President Biden.
In a move signaling a tough stance towards Tehran and potentially countering criticism of the exchange deal, President Biden announced sanctions on Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and its intelligence ministry, citing their involvement in wrongful detentions.
He also emphasized that the U.S. would continue to impose costs on Iran for its provocative actions in the region.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken downplayed expectations that the prisoner swap would lead to a breakthrough in efforts to return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, from which former President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018.
He stated that the U.S. was not currently engaged in such negotiations but remained open to future opportunities.
RELATED CTN NEWS:
Budget Deadlock Sparks Government Shutdown Concerns: 7 Things You Need To Know
Thailand’s Economic Uncertainty: Debates, Criticism, And Reassurances Amidst Recession Fears
Nipah Virus: Kerala Implements Mass Testing After 4th Outbreak In India Since 2018

News
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
News
The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
News
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.
Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.
The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.
Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.
Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.
He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.
“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.
Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.
SOURCE | AP
-
News4 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health4 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles3 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies3 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning3 years ago
Virtual Numbers: What Are They For?