>> we did an advanced statistical test controlling what predicts religious related violence. and what we found is that social restrictions on religious freedom pushing government restrictions on religious freedom leading to violence. so you have a religious violence cycle. and we controlled the religion of each country. and we found that islam did not directly predict religious violence in this model. but we did find that some religious factors are involved. and one that came out statistically significant was whether or not the government deferred to religious law and religious authorities within the country. and that tended to drive up the level of social restrictions on religi religion. those two were working in tandem. i think none of us would say religion has -- you know, religion is not used or has no

role in the conflicts. the mechanisms and policies going on in societies predicts the violence rather than the particular religion. >> so the bells are ringing. it is now noon. lunch awaits. so join me in thanking these panelists. >> nice to end on a note of agreement but i suspect that we'll return to the question of whether the content of religion has the effect of violence later on in our program today. but first lunch. it is here. we invite you to grab a sandwich, chat with your colleagues. but please be returned to your seats by 12:30. we'll have our keynote conversation.

>> we'll focus on that on c-span3. we want to let you know about other coverage coming up. throughout the day we had our facebook question up about afghanistan. what do you think about afghan president karzai's demand for an immediate u.s. troop pullback? he said today that he's at the end of his rope because of the lack of u.s. cooperation and the probe of that killing spree allegedly carried out by an american soldier. you can host your comments at facebook.com/c-span. by the way, that soldier is being blown to ft. leavenworth, kansas, as early as today. the house and senate are out today. the house will be back on monday, back from their district work period at 4:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work. votes scheduled at 6:30. we expect budget committee chairman paul ryan to present his 2013 budget proposal next week. you can watch the house, as always, live on c-span. the senate also returns on monday at 2:00 p.m. for general

speeches and 4:30 they'll return to work on a small business bill that aimed at loosening securities regulations. on tuesday, the chamber has several votes on that. president obama has got a couple fundraisers to day, in particular this afternoon in chicago. we'll have live coverage of that at 1. . 20 eastern. and then the president heads to atlanta for a fund-raiser there that is hosted by his african-american leadership counsel. again, coverage of the fundraiser in chicago on c-span at 1:20 eastern. a federal court unsealed a special report that described widespread misconduct that derailed the prosecution and corruption conviction of the late ted stevens of alaska. on this morning's washington journal, we got an update on the story from a capitol hill reporter. >> good morning to you. what are the details about this?

what should people know about the inquiry -- senator stephen's trial and then we'll take it from there about what is next. >> well, this is a report by special prosecutor henry shelby. he was appointed by the court and federal judge here in washington who oversaw the corruption trial of the late senator ted stephens in 2008. that as stevens was convicted of failing to report improper gifts, more than $250,000 worth of gifts. and he lost his re-election that year. in the following spring -- well, after the conviction, there was an fbi agent came forward and said prosecutors failed to provide evidence to steven's defense attorneys. they called into question in the

case that attorney general eric holder then in early '09 asked to have a conviction set aside in a absolutely stunning development. and the judge agreed to do that. then he appointed this gentleman to lead this investigation. we knew the outlines of the findings since last november. we knew that, you know, there were major, major, major problems inside the prosecution over the stevens case. i think what was stunning yesterday and yesterday's developments is when you go through the report, it's a lengthy report. it's over 500 pages. and then there's responses from the prosecutors and so folks involved in the case from justice department side which also link response. it is just stunning that actually how much was withheld,

how there were serious, serious doubts within justice department or there should have been more serious doubts about the case against stevens. and folks knew for a long time that there were senior justice department officials knew for a long time how suspect parts of the case were against the late senator. >> there was a us is speckedsuse against the stevens family. have you seen any estimates about how much it cost for the federal government to mount this prosecution? >> it is millions of dollars. i mean it's hard to oversee how important the stevens case was. ted stevens was the longest

serving republican in senate history. he was a legendary figure. he was a very direct man. you know, his job was he sought to bring federal dollars back to alaska. he was a powerful man. it's hard to overstate how important that case was. they raided his home more than a year before he was indicted. they had a long time to look at this case. and it was a huge conviction. at the time it was seen as a huge victory for the justice department. now, you know, years later, it's become -- and it is still a political issue in alaska and a political issue here. you have some of stevens' former colleagues bashing the justice department and senator patrick leahy, chairman of the judiciary committee says he may have a hearing on what happened here.

it shattered morale. and it is still playing out. doj pulled back from some cases that you would prior to stevens case you would have think they would go after, for instance, the allegations against former senator john ensign. they didn't bring criminal charges. they're still loogiking at it. but the shocking developments here, you would have thought they would have gone after him. there were other cases. so it's still playing out. you know, there is still legislation on this trying to change prosecutoral standards. when you look at the report and folks that covered it like myself how strong the special

prosecutor was. and the other part is ervin side the justice department was pointing fingers at each other. junior prosecutors in the case, some of them being blamed for the bulk of what happened, they're pointing fingers at their bosses. bosses are saying it was these guys. nobody wants to take responsibility. it is surprising to me how much finger pointing and then -- actually, they take after some of these guys in the report and says, you know, he was interviewing -- he interviewed everybody. and the justice department officials involved and, you know, they're all blaming each other. and there are certain points where they just, you know, there are five or six of them in the room discussing things about the case that were later came out and, you know, now none of them can recall what happened. >> it's a complex story. obviously, hard to do justice in a couple minutes on the phone

here. i would suggest to people they read your story. there is a major piece in "the washington post" on it today. you were there for so much of the trial. are you thinking about make a book coming out on this? >> no. i don't know. i'm sure there will be. to me it's stunning. >> not from you? >> i don't know. we'll see. you know, i think it would be fascinating to do so. i would hope somebody does it. again, for your viewers, i mean it's important that issues like this get explored in depth. we need the justice department and other law enforcement to be able to police congress and police powerful public officials. the thing you have to do so in is a responsible way.

the line is very difficult to achieve. i think in in case, it's clear that the goal became more important than actual justice. i think that was a shame for democracy. >> let me jump in at that point with a thank you very much for giving us some of the details involved in this very -- this lengthy report from a special prosecutor in the stevens case with the headlines on it finding major misconduct by the justice department. the prosecution team and the ted stevens case. we encourage you to read more about it this morning. you covered the trial, wrote sto the story this morning. thank you for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> in 20 minutes we'll take you back to the georgetown university discussion on religious freedom and extremism. in the meantime, we continue the conversation from this morning's washington journal, a look at the latest news from afghanistan, iran and syria.

>> our first guest thinks and writes about american foreign policy from "the washington post" where he has written a number of interesting novels about similar issues. thanks for being here. we've been talking with our audience this morning about all the developments and u.s. policy in afghanistan. you've been a supporter of the nato strategy which is a timed withdrawal over the next couple of years. does this week's events change your thinking about that at all? >> we'll have to see. we debated with our nato allies going back to a summit meeting in portugal a year or so ago. and that calls for a phased withdrawal, calls for all nato troops essentially to be gone by the end of 2014. and for u.s. and nato troops to turn over the lead combat role

by the middle of next year. it may be that the announcements this week, especially by president karzai urging that some time next year, he wasn't clear when, u.s. forces and presumably all nato forces should stay on bases, pull out of the countryside, may allow reduction in forces. the question, obviously, is whether afghan forces are ready to take over full responsibility. i think if they are, they really can keep the countryside stable. nobody will be happier to see that happen. if they're not ready, i have a feeling that president karzai whose continued tenure as president depends on a degree of stability in the country and would not push that issue.

he would probably defer it to the end of the year. i think that timetable will work for the united states for sure. >> when you read through all of the secondary reporting on this, people who are quoted even in countries saying that once he faces reality of what this means, he'll be pulling back from his demands. others saying that mr. karzai has a history of making very inflamatory demands and then pulling away from them. so what have we learned about his stability as a leader? >> we learned that he is a very erratic, emotional leader. you have to be patient. you have to understand that what he says a week from now or a month from now may not be exactly the same as what he is saying today. i think the core issue the u.s.

should be focusing on, i hope karzai is focusing on is how is this country going to remain stable enough after withdrawal of most american forces which is coming. i mean there is no question about that. we're on our way out. how is the country going to remain stable enough to avoid civil war? afghanistan has known just a hideous of 30 years of war. it's a country that's been pounded in every corner. when you travel afghanistan like i have, you know, i've been there 16 times, what you see is a terribly poor country that is visibly suffering these wounds of war. the last thing they should want is power vacuum out in the countryside a lot of the resumption of that civil war quickly. that's been the worry at the core of the u.s. strategy there. how do we build up the afghan

forces good enough that they can handle the load? and that's what people are struggling to explore, trying to keep talking u.s. to afghans even with these terrible incidents like burning korans and this massacre last weekend. >> there are so many countries that we could talk about here because much going on in the region, egypt, obviously syria, iran, and iraq. but we're going to focus in our initial conference here on syria and iran and afghanistan. if you have questions, david is going to take a stab at those. we welcome your participation. that's what this is all about. we'll put the phone numbers on the screen. you can also send us a comment by twitter. all of the addresses will be demonstrated on the screen as our conversation continues. how many times have you been to afghanistan? >> i haven't made an exact count. it's at least a dozen. >> and if people at home are asking just the question, what did the u.s. and nato get for

ten years of investment of treasure in that country? what would you say? >> in terms of the core goal that we set whether u.s. forces first entered into 2001 after the attack on our u.s. world trade center and the pentagon, what we got was a basic structure of al qaeda's base in afghanistan. they fought across the border in the tribal areas of pakistan. we have been attacking them with mostly with drone aircraft. we remember last may 2nd his compound and killing most of the other senior leaders of al qaeda. so in terms of that basic metric, we went after al qaeda and the bases.

you could argue that's been pretty successful. there was a broader goal after they were driven by power by u.s. forces and their afghan allies in that 2001 campaign. that's gone less well. we still have to see what the situation is and the key battleground provinces in the south. and in the east near the area where the so-called hikani network, a very toughed well organized forces is based. the strategy the u.s. had followed what we called counter insurgency was to secure population centers, blanket the area with u.s. and afghan forces, bring in good governance, you know, it was a basic nation building strategy.

and that's had mixed results. i think we have to be honest. afghan officials have not provided the kind of government that keeps people comfortable with where they are and that enhances security. in many areas, the taliban forces have been driven out. afghans will tell people like me when we come visit that the taliban have not popular. there are some pulling of afghans that says that's true. they're viewed in many areas as just tough, tough people who made life more difficult, not better. where the u.s. forces pull out of these areas where they surged, what will security be like? will taliban stream back in? will they regain control of the districts west of con da har where the terrible massacre took place? will they regain control? and that's what all our

commanders are watching. they're watching it week by week. we'll have to see. >> our phones are all lighted up just with this topic. let's take a couple calls and then move on to other topics. kent, connecticut, is on the air. a republican there. good morning, jean. >> caller: good morning. i guess mostly have a comment. i wonder how he would feel if he were one of the last people in afghanistan because what's going to happen there, the taliban is going to take the country over. everybody knows that. because of the timed withdrawal, all the people there are picking sides now. most people are going to be afraid of the taliban, afraid of losing their heads. so they're going to go with the taliban. they're scrambling for that right now. how would you like to be the last one there?

we don't think anything of sending people over and leaving them in this predicament knowing that we're going to pull out in 2014. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. >> well, the caller raises a couple of good questions. the first that i would focus on is this question of whether the taliban will take over. my own guess is that if you're looking for a bad outcome, if you're going to be a pessimist about afghanistan and it sure is easy given that country's history, what you would expect is not a takeover by the taliban and the return to the kind of government they had but a civil war. there are many nonpashtun afghans as they're called, different ethnic groups that make up the mosaic of afghanistan would are already beginning to stockpile the weapons and prepare to defend

their regions to make sure that the taliban don't take control. i think that's the thing we have to worry about more is a splintering, a civil war in a country that results in partition. on the last question there. one thing the u.s. is good at is force protection. i don't know anybody that cares more about the security of soldiers than their senior officers like general allen who is in command. >> there was a column titled "how to end the afghan mission." welcome you to find them on "the washington post" website. for his next call from new york city, david is the democrat there. good morning, david. you're on. >> caller: good morning, just a question. you appear to be a very thoughtful and reflective man.

if we could consider the counter factual, so to speak, if after 9/11 we had characterized this as a criminal act and involved the fbi and in terms of securing the country from terrorism and also engaged the cia in terms of gathering intelligence and never gone to war, just never gone to war in afghanistan or iraq and taken a completely different route, would we be in a better position now? >> i think it's entirely possible that we would be in a better position. i think you've raised one of the most important lessons of this ten years of war that we lived through which is that american power in a funny way is more powerful when it's add our side, you know, when the gun is in the holster. once we take it out and begin

shooting, once we begin these big expeditionary wars with tens and hundred thousands of u.s. troops surging into these countries, what has struck people overseas is how difficult we found it, how hard it is to achieve our aims. so i come to think as the caller has that smaller, lighter footprint forces, paramilitary forces operated by our special forces command or by perhaps the cia will be a better answer in dealing with insurgencies around the world and better ways to support the friends of the united states. i think that view is widely shared in our government. we've all been through this experience. you'd be surprised at how the generals who have been doing the heaviest work in this fighting, they are not enthusiastic about

more wars and the model of iraq and afghanistan. they understand just as you do that these big footprint fights have had big costs. >> okay. we have to move on. these are complex issues. we're going to move on to iran. once again, your recent column, march 9, "how to sink iran's regime? sanctions, not bombs." i saw this story. "global network xpelz 30 of iran's banks and move to isolate as a communist. this is global network called swift. they announced thursday expelling 30 iranian institutions crippling their ability to conduct international business and further isolating the country. the story notes it's the first time that swift has taken such a drastic step. how important is this? >> this was a big story, susan. s.w.i.f.t., the payment system for international banking, it's

like the world's financial central nervous system. and if s.w.i.f.t. cuts you off, your ability to transact basic business is much, much harder. you have to plug in the other remote outlets. if you can't, you have to -- if you're iran, see if can you finance transactions through turkey, through the uae, through other neighbors. and that's at a time when the u.s. is going to be observing strong pressure on those countries not to help. so this is one more step down the road to saying to iran that their current course is unacceptable to the war community. symbolized here by the world banking consortium. what i argue in the article as you mentioned is basically that i think military attack on iran by israel or by the united states would be a mistake. i think it would produce the

opposite result that we desire. it wouldn't retard the nuclear program more than a year or two. it would probably rally the iranian people behind a regime that right now is really unpopular and divided against itself. and i worry that also might deflect the course that we call the arab spring, although it's not very springy joan anymore, so it became more pro iranian, more milmilitant, more anti-wesn than it is. i think sanctions, which we often just laugh at as an ineffective kind of policy, in this case really do seem to be working. the iranian currency lost half of its value in the last few months. and these new sanctions will increase that pressure and i'd be amaze be amaze philadelphia they didn't have some effect on iranian policy. >> well, we do keep hearing more and more threatening statements from western leaders and from

israel about the possibility of military action. for example, with prime minister cameron visit on wednesday, the president described the window for diplomatic approaches. let's listen to him if we can. and then i'd like to have you talk about whether this is a strategy or whether or not in fact it's becoming an inestability. >> i have sent a message very directly to them publicly that they need to seize this opportunity of negotiations with the p-5 plus one to overt worse consequences for iran in the future. do i have a guarantee that iran will walk through this door that we're offering them? no. in the past, there's been a tendency for iran in these negotiations with p-a plus one to delay, to stall, to do a lot of talking but not actually move the ball forward.

i think they should understand that because the international community has applied so many sanctions, because we have -- >> you can see all of this program later in our program schedule and also in the video library at c-span.org. we're going to breakaway and take you back live to georgetown university and their discussion, their day-long discussion looking at religious freedom and extremism. coming up next, you're going to hear the keynote presentation on the arab spring and the participants in this panel include former bush administration officials elliott abrams, a former deputy national security adviser, stephen hadley and former middle east peace negotiator dennis ross. live coverage resuming here on c-span3.