And when I say pepper sprayed, I mean getting full blast of the strongest used by police in the USA. I'm asking because I don't know the answer to this question. I'm guessing that one is usually waterboarded for a short period of time, whereas the pepper spray is painful for a considerably longer period of time. I personally have a medical condition that might result in my death in either case (and doesn't that limit my ability to participate in protests under what appear to be the current police standards?).
Whatever your answer to this question, I think another, perhaps more important question is, if you're not sure of your answer to that first question, then aren't you admitting that people who want to do what Gandhi and King, Jr. did might be tortured today if they do what those two men did? And of course if neither kills you, as it might me, then I think you'd agree that you'd rather have either one of these things done to you rather than to be hit in the head with a tear gas canister, resulting in a cracked skull and potential brain damage, right? And what about long-term cancer risk of being pepper sprayed, as we saw at UC Davis the other day?
I have not heard anyone in the "mainstream media" mention this. Aren't we all "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" in the USA? If so, why are people who are doing what Gandhi and King, Jr. did being subjected to things that not even mass murderers are? Would you rather be in jail for a few days, hit with that pepper spray full blast in the face (then dragged off and not given any help for hours), or waterboarded for a very short period of time? I agree with what Maddow said last night (about such nasty techniques being justified as "non-violent" even though violent techniques would clearly be uncalled for anyway), but she did not go far enough, in my opinion.
EDIT: Forgot to ask, or would you rather be bitten by a German Shepard on your legs or arms?
EDIT #2: I just happened to watch a few minutes of the "Dr. Drew" show last night and tonight. Apparently, he angered many of his own viewers by his statements about the UC Davis incident. Tonight, in a way I found condescending, he showed his audience a definition of non-violent protest (or a similar phrase). Part of it, which he emphasized, included an expectation of being punished. I find his misunderstanding of the situation rather disappointing, considering his academic credentials. "Punishment" should occur after a trial and a finding of guilt, and even then, torture is not an acceptable punishment for any crime in the "civilized" world. Did the good doctor ever hear of that much more well-known phrase, "cruel and unusal punishment?" Does he and his ilk believe that cruel and unusual treatment is fine before a person is arrested for a crime?