Banner Advertiser

Monday, February 28, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Latifur Rahman of Prothom Alo, Transcom



Latifur Rahman of Prothom Alo, Transcom
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Islami Bank spends 8pc profit on militancy



Says Tuku; bank bins claim

Islami Bank Bangladesh is spending eight percent of its profit to fund militants in the country, State Minister for Home Shamsul Huq Tuku has said.The bank is spending the money through the Islami Bank Foundation, he said at a meeting at the secretariat yesterday.

According to the statement on its website, the bank had a net profit of Tk 352.8 crore in the nine months to September 2010.

The home ministry has asked the bank authorities to submit a report before April 7 on where the bank spent its profit, Tuku said at the 9th meeting on ways to combat militancy at his office. Home Secretary Abdus Sobhan Sikdar, Inspector General of Police (IGP) Hassan Mahmood Khandker and Rapid Action Battalion Director General Mukhlesur Rahman also attended the meeting. The home ministry has intelligence report that the bank is spending certain amount of its profit to spread militancy, a meeting source told The Daily Star.

The Bangladesh Bank (BB) in November last year assigned its General Manager SM Moniruzzaman to identify any suspicious transaction by Islami Bank Bangladesh and its foundation. Prior to that on November 8, the BB imposed a ban on giving funds to the foundation for its alleged lack of transparency in the transaction, and for violation of Islamic Sharia.A BB official said the general manager is tasked with overseeing the overall activities of the bank and monitoring its fund transfer to the foundation.

Islami Bank's Public Relations Officer Mohammad Abdul Mannan, however, denied the bank's involvement in financing militants. "If we fund militants then why the authority concerned does not halt our banking?" he told The Daily Star.
Tuku said the ministry asked the intelligence agencies to prepare a report on how the bank spends its "Jakat" (donation to the poor) before the next meeting on April 7.He added that he has information that the bank spent its Jakat fund in 16 phases though it is permitted to spend it in eight phases. The state minister instructed the IGP to use community police to uproot militancy from the society and to stop recruiting members for militant groups from academic institutions.
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Empire of Lies: CIA and the Western Media



An Empire of Lies: The CIA and the Western Media

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23432

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Libya could have happened in Kashmir if she had oil



India, Pakistan And The Kashmiri Struggle

By Dr Shabir Choudhry

Speech of Dr Shabir Choudhry in a public meeting of UKPNP arranged in Nottingham, England 21 February 2011

Mr Chairman Usman Kayani, Chief Guest Shaukat Kashmiri, KNP Chairman Abbas Butt, friends and colleagues aslamo alayakam.

Normally people accuse me and my colleague Ababs Butt for being 'anti Pakistan'. Their main allegation is that we don't speak about human rights abuses on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir. That is not true. Time and again, we have spoken against human rights abuses on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir; but our contention was and still is that men in uniform are not the only source of human rights abuses on the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir.

Apart from that, we think Indian policy on Kashmir is known to all concerned, what more can you say about that policy, they have put all their cards regarding Kashmir on table. However, Pakistani policy on Kashmir is not fully exposed. They have disguised their Kashmir policy and their real intentions in name of Islam. They have kept their cards related to Kashmir close to their chest; and have been advancing their Kashmir policy under the cover of religion and Muslim brotherhood.

Both countries want to get all of Jammu and Kashmir, or at least, retain what they have. One country is using name of religion to advance its imperialist policy and the other country is using name of democracy and secularism or relying on that provisional accession.

Question before us is to use our meagre resources to expose a policy of that country which is already exposed, and more than 95% of Kashmiri political activists, either on their own or under directions of Pakistani agencies are only focussing to expose that country; or we be loyal to our cause and our people and tell them what they don't know - tell them designs of the country which is using name of a religion to advance their agenda, rather than tell them what they already know.

Unpopular as it was, but we decided to expose the country which was perceived as a friend, yet its policies were no different to any other country with imperialist designs; a country which was fooling us and damaging our cause in name of religion and jihad. It was very easy for us to be a part of the crowd and go with the tide and be declared as loyal and patriots by those who control and direct the Kashmiri struggle.

However, to us, that was not in the interest of our struggle, it was not in the interest of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. It was not in the interest of our norms and traditions of tolerance and coexistence. We thought policies that are designed and promoted by secret agencies of Pakistan could not be in the best interest of all people of Jammu and Kashmir and could lead to division of the State on religious lines.

We don't say India has not committed human rights abuses, but we should also expose those who commit human rights abuses and put that in the account of the Indian army. Our contention is that there are many accounts or many sources of killings, but because of convenience some people like to put everything in the account of the Indian army. We feel sorry for those who have died in name of Kashmiri struggle, and we also feel sorry for their families, but we also need to note the following sources of killings:

1. Indian army;
2. Militant groups fighting each other;
3. Militants killing their opponents and so called informers;
4. People killed in personal revenge or family and tribal disputes;
5. People killed in cross firing mainly because these mujahids engage Indian army and para - military forces in crowded place and cross firing results in killing of innocent people;
6. Cross border firing;
7. And targeted killings of Pakistani secret agencies and their proxies in Jammu and Kashmir.

So we can see there are many sources of killings but for convenience there is only one account – Indian army has killed innocent people. We say where army is responsible for killing of innocent people, do oppose it and condemn it, but when there are other culprits, don't shy away from exposing them. It is no good to tell people after two decades that Abdul Ghani Lone and Miwaiz were not killed by Indian army, but they were killed by 'our own people', just like Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat has done.

Apart from that we thought our struggle should be against the country which occupies us. It is illogical that people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir go to liberate people of the Valley, whereas they are also occupied; and one slave locked up in one room cannot help the other slave locked up in another room.

People sometime accuse me of criticising Amanullah Khan. I don't dislike Amanullah khan as a person; I dislike his wrong policies; just like I don't dislike India and Pakistan as countries, but I don't like their Kashmir policies.

It was Amanullah khan who made a secret pact with ISI a secret agency of Pakistan to launch militancy in the Valley of Kashmir which has proved to be disastrous for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and for struggle of an independent and secular Kashmir because militancy was transformed in to jihad. It was his idea (which was given to him by the ISI) that militancy should only be used against India, and once India is defeated Pakistan will also leave areas under their control. How India will be defeated by a gun borrowed from Pakistan; and how and why Pakistan will vacate areas their illegal control he never elaborated. He told us and others what he was told by middle ranking officers of the ISI.

So it was his secret agreement with Pakistani secret agency which proved to be disastrous, for this crime and other blunders should I blame him or a villager called Nathoo Khan? As a person Amanullah Khan is a decent man, but he is not judged in his personal capacity as a man. He and his followers claim he is leading an independence movement, so he should be judged as a leader and a tactician; and in that capacity he proved to be a disaster for his party and the Kashmiri struggle.

We can criticise both India and Pakistan for their Kashmir policies, but in my opinion, the Kashmiri leaders deserve more criticism for advancing anti Kashmir and anti people policies. It is unfortunate that some leaders of Jammu and Kashmir have been more loyal to India or Pakistan than to their motherland – Jammu and Kashmir. They have deliberately chosen this policy, not because it was in the best interest of Kashmir and people of Jammu and Kashmir, but they chose that policy for the sake of rewards from these countries. They have promoted such policies which caused confusion among people and actively promoted extremism, communalism and hatred.

Chairman, I thank you for your patience.

Writer is Head Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

View my blog and web: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Al-Qaida links in Bangladesh



Al-Qaida links in Bangladesh
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: Only people's graft to be under watch



ACC to have no power to sue public servants
The government on Sunday tabled the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Bill 2011 in parliament proposing provisions for stripping the anti-graft watchdog of the authority to sue public servants on graft charges.

Agriculture minister Matia Chowdhury, also in charge of the cabinet division for
parliamentary affairs, piloted the bill that proposes 13 amendments to the
Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004.The bill was sent to the parliamentary standing committee on the law ministry for further scrutiny.

If enacted, the bill would take away the commission's powers to appoint its
secretary and to sue public servants on graft charges.The bill proposes substitution of a new Section 32 for the existing Section 32.
The proposed section says no court will take cognisance of any offence under the act without sanction of the commission.
A copy of the sanction of the commission and, in an appropriate case, a copy of
the sanction of the government and the commission must be submitted while filing a graft case, the proposed section says.The existing section says that the sanction by the commission is a must for filing of a graft case and a copy of the sanction needs to be submitted while filing the case.

The bill proposes insertion of a new Section 32A that says the provisions
stipulated in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed in
filing a graft case against a judge, magistrate or public servant, subject to
Section 32 of the act.

The Section 197 of the CrPC says, 'When a person who is a judge within the
meaning of section 19 of the Penal Code, or when a magistrate, or when any
public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction
of the government, is accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by
him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no
court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of
the government.'

The act, however, does not have any definition of 'public servant'.
Article 152 of the constitution defines 'public officer' as 'a person
holding or acting in any office of emolument in the service of the republic'.
The Bengali version of the article makes the same definition for 'public
servant' (sarkari karmachari).

The term 'public servant' is, however, defined in the Penal Code. The long
list of persons falling in the definition of public servant, as defined in the
Penal Code, includes commissioned officers in the armed forces, judges, court
officials, arbitrators, assessors, income tax officers, persons empowered to
place or keep any person in confinement, government officials entrusted with the
duty to prevent offence in the society and to protect public health, safety or
convenience, officers assigned to take, receive, keep or expend any property on
behalf of the government and to make survey or assessment or to levy tax for
common purpose of any village, town or district, Election Commission officers,
municipal commissioners and persons in the service or pay of the government or
remunerated by the government by fees or commissions and in the service or pay
of a local authority or of a corporation, body or authority established by or
under any law.
The bill proposes empowerment of the government to appoint a secretary to the
commission.
If the bill is enacted, the commission will have no power to summon witnesses or
to record their depositions on oath.
According to the bill, the commission will be able to assign its officials or
police or any other institution to investigate an offence of corruption. The
existing act does not allow investigation of any graft offence by any person or
institution other than the officials of the commission.
The commissioners will be stripped of their power to investigate any graft case.
The bill proposes a 120-working-day timeframe for investigation of a graft case.
The commission, will, however, have the power to extend the deadline by 60
working days.
If the investigation officer fails to meet the extended deadline, another
investigation officer will be assigned to investigate the case and the failed
investigation officer will face departmental action, says the bill.
The bill proposes empowerment of the commission to seek any report or
information from the government or any government institutions or organisations
and to seek assistance from one or more officials who have expertise on the
matter.
The bill says the commission can notify any individual asking for his/her wealth
report, if it finds that the individual possesses assets disproportionate to his
legal income, after conducting an inquiry, instead of investigation, into the
allegation.
The bill proposes insertion of a provision that says the offences under the act
will be cognisable, non-compoundable and non-bailable.
It proposes stipulation for non-disclosure of the identity of a person who makes
an allegation of corruption or provides the commission with information of
graft. It also says that no court will allow any person to examine any part of
any book or document that contains any information about the identity of such
person.
The court, however, can disclose the identity of such persons, if it thinks that
the persons have made a false allegation or if such disclosure is necessary to
ensure justice, the bill says.
The bill says any person will be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two to
five years for making a false allegation of corruption or providing the
commission with false information about graft.
If such person is a public servant, he or she will also face departmental
proceedings.
http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/frontpage/9897.html

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
Only people's graft to be under watch

Changes to anti-corruption law kept under wraps; from president to UP members to be beyond ACC's jurisdiction


Maintaining utmost secrecy the government is set to amend the Anti-Corruption Commission laws clipping the anti-graft watchdog's authority to file cases against any public servant beginning from the head of state to the members of union parishads.

Besides, the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina recently finalised nine more amendments keeping the ACC completely ignorant about it. Since then repeated attempts by the commission to get a written copy of the finalised amendments turned futile.

According to information gleaned by The Daily Star, the most damaging amendment would be the provision to require prior permission before filing cases against officers and employees of the republic.

Earlier in the draft proposal sent to the ACC, it was mentioned that permission would be required for filing cases against "government officials and employees". Based on that confusing wording, different sections of the media reported that lawmakers would remain out of cover.

Asked for a written copy of the finalised amendments to see what the proposal actually means, Cabinet Secretary Abdul Aziz refused to give it.

"It might confuse people if we make it public now, as the parliament might bring more changes to the proposed amendments," Abdul Aziz said.

"People will know it after it is passed in the parliament by their representatives," the cabinet secretary added.

However, section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2009 allows keeping any cabinet decision secret only when prior permission is taken from the Information Commission.

Information Commissioner Prof Sadeka Halim confirmed that the cabinet did not take any such permission from them.

Former caretaker government adviser, Dr Akbar Ali Khan, assumed that keeping the decision secret, implies there might be two reasons behind it. Either the government is still examining whether they should bring the amendments, or the government would make the amendments hastily before anybody knows about it.

"But there is no scope for the government to keep the amendments secret, as ultimately it will be placed before the parliament. I cannot say for sure why the government is behaving this way, I can only assume," Akbar Ali Khan added.

Abdul Aziz, however, confirmed that as per the proposed amendments, prior permission would be required before filing a case against public servants defined by section 21 of the Penal Code.

"The section of the Penal Code refers to public servant meaning persons employed in service of the people and paid by the government," said ACC's counsel Anisul Huq. "The head of state, prime minister, ministers and advisers will be on the list of public servants," he added.

This amendment would make the ACC vulnerable to misuse on political purposes, for harassing people, like the time of now-defunct Bureau of Anti-Corruption, Anisul Huq observed.

The main objective of transforming the Bureau of Anti-Corruption into an independent commission in 2004 was to equip it with power of prosecuting corrupt public servants, who, according to Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) surveys, are largely involved in corruption.

Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud mentioned that public servants include lawmakers, people working in statutory bodies, and also local government representatives of all tiers.

According to the Penal Code, the long list of public servants also includes commissioned officers in the armed forces, judges, officers of a court of justice, jurymen, assessors, or members of a panchayat assisting a court of justice, income tax officers, Election Commission officers, municipal commissioners and government officials entrusted with the duty to prevent offence in the society.

Article 152 of the constitution defines public officers as persons holding or acting in any office of emolument in the service of the republic.

"Experience shows the government rarely permits filing of cases against its officers. Whenever the permission comes, it is never against any high-profile officer," said Rokanuddin.

In case an ACC official eventually gets the permission, the problem does not end there as an anti-graft official would be jailed for between two and five years if he or she failed to prove the case before a court.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The amendment proposes jail term for two to five years with fine if any individual including ACC officials filed a false allegation or influenced the court by giving false information.

Regarding the ACC officials, the provision also proposes taking departmental action in addition to the jail term.

The provision would largely discourage ACC officials and individuals from filing cases or allegations as those can be proved false at any stage of legal proceedings.

"The provision is unnecessary as the anti-graft body does not take any allegation into cognisance without enquiry. Rather the government should protect those who will act as whistle blowers in combating corruption," said TIB Trustee Prof Muzaffer Ahmad.

About 80 to 90 percent of corruption enquiries and investigations currently underway in the ACC are results of individuals' complaints. The commission has a committee to scrutinise the complaints before initiating an enquiry.

If an enquiry finds merit, commission examines it, and gives permission to file a case. Another investigation is conducted following that step.

"Punishment for filing a false case means punishment of the commission as it approves the case. A case may be proved false during a trial for a lot of reasons," said TIB Chairman M Hafizuddin Khan.

The third amendment adds a further twist proposing cancellation of the ACC's authority to summon witnesses for their statements during investigations. Instead, the amendment proposes issuance of notices to witnesses.

If ACC investigators cannot summon witnesses, they might not appear before the commission, hampering investigations greatly.

"It will undermine the credibility of the investigation, besides creating procedural flaws and affecting its effectiveness," said TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman.

The cabinet also finalised appointment of the ACC secretary by the government, prompting experts to comment that the amendment goes directly against the spirit of the ACC's independence.

"This is a direct government intervention in ACC's independence. The secretary might not follow all decisions of the commission, and nurture bureaucracy," said Advocate Khurshid Alam Khan.

There is also the most diplomatic amendment proposing to make ACC cases non-bailable, non-compoundable, and cognisable.

Though people welcomed the provision thinking it is positive, legal experts term it an eyewash through a game of words, as "non-bailable" does not necessarily mean graft suspects would never obtain bail.

"It is nothing new as it already exists regarding different offences like murder and rape. Non-bailable offenes are usually non-compoundable. And people can get bail in those cases through the court," explained Rokanuddin Mahmud.

Allowed time for an investigation is also proposed to be increased to 180 days from the existing 60 days. Experts say this change is insignificant, and in some cases it might even make an investigation unnecessarily lengthy.

The only amendment that is welcomed by all is that no ACC official would be able to be the investigator of corruption allegation against their colleagues. Instead, another government official would do the job.

Another amendment proposed to cancel the ACC's authority to take witnesses' statement under oath. It caused mixed reaction giving rise to a debate over the intention behind this proposal, which indicates creation of impediments to ACC's effectiveness.

Keeping secret the identities of people revealing corruption information is proposed in another amendment.

None of the ACC's own amendment proposals including for increase of its human resources, making its laws supreme over other laws, and making the commission able to seek expertise from other government agencies was accepted by the cabinet.

"The power of the commission would be greatly curtailed and its independence would be greatly compromised. I would request the government to consult various sections of the population before coming to a conclusion," said Anisul Huq.

ACC Chairman Ghulam Rahman only expressed the hope that there would be refinement of the proposals in the parliament. He said he expects opinions of people would be considered in the parliament and international anti-corruption laws would be discussed there.

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=175686



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Pakistan Tried to Trade CIA Contractor for 'Lady al Qaeda'

Pakistan trying to free an Al Qaeda Agent US Citizen from Jail, convicted for Treason?

 Now what other evidence Obama needs against Pakistan that it is behind Al Qaeda?

------------

U.S. Nixed Deal To Swap Raymond Davis for Aafia Siddiqui

The government of Pakistan offered to trade a CIA contractor currently jailed in that country for a Pakistani neuroscientist suspected by U.S. intelligence to be an al Qaeda operative.

According to a senior American administration official and a Pakistani official involved in the negotiations to free CIA contractor Raymond Davis, the Pakistani government proposed trading Davis for Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT-educated Pakistani neuroscientist currently serving 86 years in federal prison for attempted murder.

The offer was immediately dismissed by the U.S. government. "The Pakistanis have raised it," the U.S. official said. "We are not going to pursue it."

The proposal is the latest in a series of efforts to break an impasse between Washington and Islamabad over Davis. The CIA contractor has been held by Pakistani authorities since late January for shooting and killing two men he says were following his car and tried to rob him.

Siddiqui was convicted of trying to shoot F.B.I. agents and military officers in an Afghanistan police station in 2008. Siddiqui had been arrested the day before after being found with a list of New York city landmarks and instructions on how to construct explosives.

In 2004, F.B.I. director Robert Mueller described Siddiqui as an "al Qaeda operative and facilitator." The F.B.I. had issued a global alert for Siddiqui and her first husband in 2003, for their suspected ties to al Qaeda. Siddiqui later remarried to an al Qaeda operative, who was the nephew of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. The husband, Ammar al-Baluchi is currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Siddiqui was never charged with any terrorism-related crimes, however. Shortly after the FBI alert, she and her children disappeared, only to surface in Afghanistan five years later. Siddiqui has claimed she was held in secret American prisons, including Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, during that time. American officials have consistently denied that she was ever in American custody.

According to the Pakistani official, the Pakistan's government proposal called for Siddiqui to be transferred to Pakistan, where she would serve the remainder of her sentence in a Pakistani jail or under house arrest.

Siddiqui's case became a cause celebre in Pakistan last year when Pakistan's prime minister called for Siddiqui's exoneration and release.

Popular Pakistani sentiment held that Siddiqui, who also had a Ph.D. from Brandeis University, had been persecuted by the U.S. because she was an educated Islamist woman, someone who spurned the West despite her background.

According to the senior administration official and a Pakistani official, the U.S. government quickly made it clear to Pakistan that they would not entertain the possibility of trading Siddiqui for Davis.

The American official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record about the negotiation, said the offer was not being considered by the Obama White House.

The Pakistani official directly involved in the negotiations agreed, saying their Siddiqui proposal was a "non-starter" for the U.S. government.

Since the impasse began in the days after the January 27th shooting in Lahore, that ultimately led to the deaths of three Pakistani citizens, both sides have alternated between hard and soft approaches to end the diplomatic stand off.

U.S. and Pakistani officials told ABC News that early on, the White House threatened to close the three U.S. consulates and expel the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. if Davis wasn't released. Pakistan's ambassador, Husain Haqqani, has denied that the White House made those threats.

The Associated Press reported last week that the Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, has stopped speaking with the CIA over the Davis case and its perception that the Americans have been heavy-handed in their efforts to get Davis released. Citing a senior ISI official, the report described the relationship between the ISI and CIA as at the lowest point since 9/11. The U.S.-Pakistani relationship is considered crucial to ending the war in Afghanistan.