The Washington Post Wants To Exonerate War Crimes?

A pretty staggering editorial from the WaPo this monring, hailing Schumer and Feinstein's decision to back Mukasey, depsite his refusal to state categorically that waterboarding is illegal torture:

While we, like Mr. Schumer, Ms. Feinstein and others, would have wished for such an answer, supplying it would have put Mr. Mukasey in conflict with Justice Department memos that likely allow the technique -- memos that those who may have carried out or authorized waterboarding relied on for legal protection.

Well: duh. And the Post's position is that when members of the executive branch violate the law, rip up the Geneva Conventions, and authorize torture in secret, the job of the Congress is to retroactively provide cover for such war crimes? Note that probably the only people ultimately liable would be the civilian politicians and legal hacks who authorized such law-breaking. So it's OK to railroad a few military grunts for abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib but not OK to hold the people responsible who unleashed this virus in the first place? I guess the editors disapprove of war crimes, but when it might affect someone they know from cocktail parties in Bethesda, they're happy to drop the matter.