I'm just catching up on the debate over whether "24" is a right wing show endorsing torture.

Jane Mayer in the New Yorker devotes three pages to the right-wing politics of Joel Surnow, the shows creator and executive producer.

I just started watching the show this season. There's an African-American President who is sensitive to the Constitution even though sometimes conflicted about the right thing to do, his sister who is an ACLU type lawyer and a female high level advisor who advocates against internment camps and argues for constitutional rights to counterbalance the ridiculous positions of the advisor who wants to trample rights (played by an ex- Ally McBeal co-star. There are also two former Six Feet Under characters and one from Commander in Chief now in "24".) There have also been scenes from detention camps revealing that many of the guys locked up had nothing to do with terrorism.

Last week, the show highlighted the absurd policy of making one of the CTU workers go through an extra clearance to log onto her computer because she was of middle eastern heritage. Also, there were plenty of American villains, including Jack Bauer's brother and father, and some guy named McCarthy who was willing to provide someone who could release the triggers on nuclear bombs in exchange for money.

More....

How about an open thread to get the weekend off and rolling? Some things I'm reading:

• A report by the Pentagon's Inspector General says Administration manipulated intel in linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in run-up to Iraq war. Attention is focused on the Office of Special Plans. Scarecrow at Firedoglake has more.

• Fired Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay disputes DOJ allegations about his office's performance.

• CREW releases a report on the 25 most corrupt officials in the Bush Administration

• Arianna on the two trials going on in the Libby courtroom.

For Anna Nicole Smith, 1967 - 2007

And it seems to me you lived your life
Like a candle in the wind
Never knowing who to cling to
When the rain set in

Graphics love to Politics TV.

After hours of more cross-examination of Tim Russert, the prosecution rested today in the Scooter Libby trial. Firedoglake has all the details.

It's hard to know where the defense plans to go — at times they seem to be claiming that Russert had a bad memory, at others that he was lying to cover his ass, and then at still others that he was lying because of malice toward Libby. But it never seemed to come together in some kind of consistent, cohesive view of what happened, and unless they can shake the jury's faith in Russert it's going to be tough to get them to believe Libby's story. The jurors seemed restless and uninterested throughout Wells' cross-examination of Russert, and aside from coming off as a bit of a scum for his First Amendment hypocrisy and his opacity with regard to how easily he gave up Libby's "confidentiality" to FBI agent Jack Eckenrode, he came off as credible.

Team Libby didn't manage to find any chinks in his armor that really seemed to cast much doubt on his really quite simple story about his conversation with Libby.

I guess Wells reverted back to his lumbering style of cross-examination that I witnessed last week. I'm sorry to hear that, not because I'm rooting for Libby but because I like a good,evenly matched trial and I like to see defense lawyers shine.

More....

Via Crooks and Liars:

Mary Matalin tries to talk her way out of her Russert-Hates-Matthews comment in Scooter Libby's notes. Nice try, no cigar. Video here.

Christy at Firedoglake has more of The Trouble With Mary.

Imus: Mary Matalin Is A Liar:  Imus, “None of you can tell the truth, it’s insane. It’s like a disease you guys have.”

Atrios has the transcript from the first call…..And the second call.

Jack Balkin's post on the theories of the Commander in Chief is, in my opinion, essentially incorrect. Balkin favors a view that the Commander in Chief's conduct of war is subject to specific control by the Congress. I think that is wrong, but what really troubles me about Balkin's piece is his misstatement of the contrary view - Balkin creates a cartoon theory that, one hopes, is rejected by any reasonable person:

The second conception of the President as Commander-in-Chief is that the President stands at the head of the armed forces of the United States and therefore that he is and should be entrusted with all important decisions regarding the conduct and use of the armed forces. Under this conception, Congress may not interfere with the President's use of the military (despite textual authority for doing so in Article I, section 8) because this would undermine or interfere with the Presidential chain of command. . . . The problem with the second conception of Commander-in-Chief is that it turns the Framers' principle of civilian control over the military on its head, realizing the Framers' fears in a different way. The danger now is not that the military will act independently and pressure the civilian government into capitulation but that the President will see the opportunity to use his position as head of the military to escape Congressional and judicial control; he will use control of the military and patriotic appeals to take the country into a series of misguided wars or to establish quasi-dictatorial powers.

This is a misstatement of both the contrary view of what is meant by Commander-in-Chief AND what it is the Framers feared.

Good for John Edwards. He didn't cave in to the right wing noise machine. It looks like Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister of will stay on as bloggers for the campaign.

Here's Edward's press statement, followed by statements from Amanda and Melissa:

John Edwards:

“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”

I have an op-ed in the Washington Examiner on why Libby wants to call Cheney as a witness, particularly if Libby doesn't testify.

Tim Russert is still on the witness stand and there was lots of legal wrangling over Andrea Mitchell's statements going on. The Judge ruled this morning Russert can't be questioned about her statements.

The defense wants to call her as a witness and Fitz has filed this brief (pdf) seeking to preclude them "from eliciting testimony regarding her knowledge, prior to July 14, 2003, that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, for the purpose of attempting to impeach her with a prior statement that would otherwise be inadmissible." Fitz argues such impeachment is improper and should be excluded.

The other fight coming up is over the defense plan to call Jill Abramson of the New York Times to impeach Judy Miller. Fitz' brief is here, Libby's is here.

Firedoglake is live-blogging the proceedings. Tom Maguire has background.

In a much lauded (not by me) piece, Larry Diamond passed a big piece of misinformation that was credulously accepted by too many:

Beyond this, the president and vice president subscribe to what some call the "unitary executive," which is a fancy way of saying they believe that Congress cannot prevent the president from doing almost anything he wants. . . . [Bush] could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before being required to get congressional authorization for the attack.

The Unitary Executive theory propounded by the Bush Administration is a travesty, but it does not provide for what Diamond says it does. In relevant part, it means that once the CONGRESS authorizes military action, then the President's power as Commander in Chief is plenary. In any event, the Supreme Court has scuttled this idea with its decisions in Rasul, Hamdi and Hamdan.

Bruce Ackerman debunks Diamond's false claim:

BA: The president has to get another authorization for a war against Iran. It isn't up to Nancy Pelosi or the House to prevent him; he doesn't have the constitutional authority to just expand the war. He does not have the authority to unilaterally invade Iran....

FP: What about actions short of invasion: air strikes or hot pursuit?

BA: Air strikes would be an invasion. It's an act of war of an unambiguous variety....On a major incursion into another large Middle Eastern country, I believe that, when push comes to shove, the president will once again request the explicit authorization of Congress. When he was contemplating the invasion of Iraq, he was in a much stronger position politically -- and he was still obliged to request authorization.

Obviously I agree with my former Con Law professor. But he does miss the important wrinkle - that the 2002 Iraq AUMF could be Bush's rationale for striking Iran. That is why I say to stop a war with Iran, end the war in Iraq.

For Cheney, Libby and all the Administration's manipulators, who will soon be finding out the jury's verdict:

"The highways jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive
Everybodys out on the run tonight but theres no place left to hide"

The Pentagon announced today that an investigation of prisoner abuse claims at Guantanamo were unfounded. Of course, they didn't bother to interview any of the detainees.

The investigation was initiated after Marine Sgt. Heather Cerveny advised the military that she heard a conversation among guards at a bar in which "they described beating detainees as common practice."

Jane Hamsher, Arianna Huffington and Swopa discuss today's Tim Russert Testimony.

There's more at Firedoglake and Huffington Post.

For MSM reporting, there's the Washington Post and the New York Times.

And, if you have a spare seven hours, you can listen to Libby's grand jury transcripts:

• March 5, 2004 Grand Jury Testimony
• March 24, 2004 Grand Jury Testimony

The transcripts are here and here.