What About a "Forced Pour"???

(WARNING: Graphic video content!) I couldn't do anything but comment on this post over at Balkinization. Apparently Elsinora, the author of this post at DailyKos, got in a pseudo-debate with John Ashcroft over the idio-syncratic differences between "forcing" and "pouring" water over a captive's face: Elsinora: Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country--exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do--do you believe that his sentence was unjust? ASHCROFT: Now, listen here. You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don't do anything like what you described. Elsinora: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat... ASHCROFT: "Pouring"! "Pouring"! Did you hear what she said?: "Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them." That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before [about the Asano case]! Elsinora: "The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach." ASHCROFT: You hear that? You hear it? "Forced"! If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...Does this college have an anatomy class? If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring... . Oh my god... I guess I should expect to soon see a specification emerge from the government regarding the exact pressure at which "poured" water becomes "forced" water. I am equally sure that an elevation requirement should be implemented, due to the fact that water "poured" from sufficient height would also become "forced", which would turn our perfectly legal "enhanced interrogation technique" into the torture that the US convicted Yukio Asano of in WWII. Obviously, I split these ridiculously narrow hairs to make a point. Lawyers spend their entire lives arguing over the legal significance of comma placement, and the ramifications of moral ambiguity (think Separate but Equal). However, we all must realize that when we constrain a victim, cover their face, and allow a constant stream of water to preclude the flow of oxygen - and ultimately to penetrate the airway and body cavity - we can dispense with the syntactic analysis of "poured" vs. "forced". the result is the same, and it is wrong. Read more here. But, lawyers - by all means, argue vigorously over commas... and in the meantime, please continue to miss the whole goddamn point.