There's another consequence to this that this poster seemed to miss.  Right now Wal-Mart does not really have skin in the game vis a vis the health care debate except to the extent that it's trying to stop big box laws.  Otherwise, they're no different from any other employer.  They try to keep their costs as low as possible.

 In other words, whereas before they had no interest in the government attempting to drive down  generic costs, and now they do.  The current system helps them.  Their incentive is to insure as few employees as possible (maximize profit) and keep medical costs as high as possible (maximize profit).  The end result is that people won't seek preventative care or early treatment.   It seems to be just another perverse effect of the free market in the health care context.

From the so-called compromise:

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES. The provisions in section 2441
of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully
satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention

for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in Common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international sources of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection 2441(d).

Realize what this means.  Some breaches are OK--the breach must be "grave"--permitting the use of techniques like sleep deprivation.  Not every breach of the Geneva convention subjects you to criminal liability, only the "really bad" ones.  This interpretation is further reflected in the use of the phrase "encompassed" in article 3.  That means that article 3's standards are there, but they do not define the scope of a violation of the statute.  

Query whether police detentions a la abu grahib would be encompassed within the "armed conflict" language.  I suspect that the military would think that it was, but I don't know enough to be sure.  I've just started reading this, but in my own mind it's a complete embarrasment. 

Rather than fight the Administration tooth and nail on a basic moral issue, the "loyal opposition" stood on the sidelines.  By not fighting, all the minority does is confirm the perception that they are feckless and irrelevant.  And right now, that perception is entirely justified.  A more detailed explanation is here.

So there's a "compromise" on torture. The details are unavailable, but the Democratic majority has been silent. 

If the choice is losing a Democratic majority and failing to make a stand on this issue, then lose the Democratic majority--it's better than your soul. After having excluded the Dems from this entire discussion, the R's are now going to beat them over the head with the "Why do you love Osama" line.  Rover did a good job of making sure that Bush is constantly on the air (which is lucky for him, because the news from almost everywhere else is not good).  You must present a choice.

Torture does not produce results.  In addition to being immoral, it's ineffective.  If the president wants to immunize the use of coercive intelligence techniques, he has the power to pardon lawbreakers.  (And, in a true emergency, who's going to bring the prosecution?).  He also has the power to institute an indemnity policy that those following orders--even if unlawful--will be defended at government expense.  There are lots of things that the PRESIDENT can do to immunize officials.  (Under this President's view of the Constitution, he doesn't need Congressional permission anyway).

What these guys want to do is to institutionalize the torture of detainees so that it can occur within bureaucracies, and without accountability.  A legislatior not willing to go to the wall against that principle is one that does not deserve his seat.