Tortured Logic

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

DVS BSTrD:
Anybody can hop on the bandwagon once it's too late to actually DO SOMETHING about it.

That's the American way.

Alex Cowan:
I take issue with one point. The fact that the switch to a more 'good cop' approach (offering food, daylight etc.) achieves the desired result is dependent on the torture that preceded it.
Were the prisoner not maltreated beforehand, the offer of mercy would be meaningless. Furthermore, the fact that they can convince him he already betrayed his co-conspirators under duress is dependent on his treatment beforehand having been sufficiently psychologically damaging to put him in a state of mental weakness. It's not a 'different strategy' proving 'enhanced interrogation' to be a failure. Instead, it shows that such techniques, if used as part of a broader plan, can achieve the desired results.

Of course, you can use such techniques without torture--the CIA and other bodies had been using them for years before the rules changed. Confidence building (one half of the puzzle here) is also a recognised useful tool that tends to yield more positive results than torture. In fact, it's almost like the torture element is superfluous.

Raiyan 1.0:
I haven't watched the movie, but I'll take Bob's word for it. Can't really see video games handling it with any kind of nuance, though. After the new Splinter Cell's knife-gouging interrogation, I'm fully prepared for a 'Press X to Waterboard' next.

Well, Spec Ops had Sandboarding. The main difference there is that it's presented as a horrible, painful, brutal technique used by desperate people who have good intentions but don't really care how low they have to go to keep peace. Which is kinda what torture is even in the best of circumstances.

OT: Bob, what did you expect? People are always gonna find things to complain about. Remeber that guy that called Portal 2 anti-orphan? Or those people that clamied one american football team having a monkey as their mascot was racist because they were facing an all-black team? All we can do is hope good people don't get put off from the movie by this. Heck, the ticket sales will probably dobule because people who endorese torture will be queing up to see their viewpoint validated and see one of those damn muslimcommienazis get what's coming to it for messing with EMERICUH.

SixShooter:

Gorfias:

That is a big part of the problem in the torture debate, which is, what the hell constitutes torture?

96 hours of sleep deprivation is physically harmful, and psychologically scarring. Being waterboarded is extremly distressing. Being strung up on ropes and stuffed into a box is physically painful and psychologically tormenting. As for "who decides", the United States has agreed to definitions as codified in various international treaties. Intentional infliction of pain and distress, such as sleep deprivation, is torture by our own definition. It's been decided.

Link? Is it pain AND distress? Not that it matters. The USSC hallucinated that non-signatory, non compliant members of an international terrorist organization are actually supposed to get Geneva Convention protections, so, written rules are pretty meaningless. People will hallucinate whatever they want.

I heard of a technique of grabbing a terrorist by the shirt and slamming him into a fake wall that makes a loud crashing sound (on purpose)while screaming at him to turn over information. I suppose you could say the screaming hurt his ears and the shouting hurt his feelings and this constitutes torture.

On the other hand, we could pull out someones fingernails and demand information while dripping acid on him and I could argue that is (edit: NOT) the "type" of pain meant by the anti torture statute. Someone just as nutty as the Hamden court might agree.

The term in meaningless and the US needs to do what it must to protect itself.

Gorfias:
snip.

Allright then, What if I told you there were groups in the US that waterboard babies?

I'm not even kidding, look.
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=79263 [1]

But by your logic, that's just good clean fun, right?

Edit: Wait, those nuts are in Canada. My bad. my point still stands though.

[1] By the way, I am sorry to link to that quote, but I just had to make a point.

Gorfias:

Link? Is it pain AND distress?

No. Even the mere threat of physical pain is considered out of bounds: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

"(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from-
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and"

Not that it matters.

The funny thing is, you don't get to fiat this. Maybe it doesn't matter to you. But like all torture apologists, what you think is irrelevant.

I heard of a technique of grabbing a terrorist

Typical authoritarian mindset. They don't "grab terrorists" they grab detainees which may or may not be terrorists. Normally, they haven't been charged with anything, and in the rare instances that they have, evidence presented is usually torture induced confessions.

On the other hand, we could pull out someones fingernails and demand information while dripping acid on him and I could argue that is (edit: NOT) the "type" of pain meant by the anti torture statute.

That would make you seem even sillier than you do now.

The term in meaningless

Your argument is meaningless. Just because some obstinately disagree about what "torture" means - that disagreement doesn't disqualify the illegality of individual acts, call them whatever you will. So for instance, sodomizing a detainee, as was recently done (link:http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/13/human-rights-court-cia-tortured-sodomized-german-citizen/), may be in your opinion "not torture". Call it torture or not, raping detainees is still illegal for a plethora of reasons. Those same reasons why such an act would be illegal, mandate that other forms of physical and psychological coercion be illegal.

So unless you're willing to throw out basic logic (and judging by your post you probably are), there is no way to argue your position with a straight face, let a lone in a logically consistent good faith.

and the US needs to do what it must to protect itself.

1. That's a tautology. Definitionally you "need to do what you must".

2. Rephrasing that into something more legible, you mean: "The U.S. should disregard legality in the pursuit of these cells". Which is still silly. You don't even apply these principles in everyday life. Should the U.S. disregard any legal check in its pursuit of criminals? If torture is ok to stop potential plots, why not use it as a tool to fight everyday crime?

3. That's precisely what's in dispute. Bigelow's propaganda film gives the impression that torture works. It doesn't. So even if you're one of those "rawr, do everything Murrica needs to do!!!", you should still oppose torture.

So you've basically demonstrated in your post, what a terrible film ZDT is, and how warped the authoritarian defense of torture is.

SixShooter:
snip

Um... it doesn't advocate torture. It shows the guy being tortured for info, then he gives them false information to make it stop. It's the movie saying "this is what is happenng and this is why it doesn't work."

Gearhead mk2:

SixShooter:
snip

Um... it doesn't advocate torture. It shows the guy being tortured for info, then he gives them false information to make it stop. It's the movie saying "this is what is happenng and this is why it doesn't work."

I already addressed this on page one. Bob is not accurately describing what happened: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.397579-Tortured-Logic#16244397

SixShooter:
I already addressed this on page one. Bob is not accurately describing what happened: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.397579-Tortured-Logic#16244397

...woah. Ok, I need to see this for myself. Get a clear view.

Pat Hulse:

Alex Cowan:
I take issue with one point. The fact that the switch to a more 'good cop' approach (offering food, daylight etc.) achieves the desired result is dependent on the torture that preceded it.
Were the prisoner not maltreated beforehand, the offer of mercy would be meaningless. Furthermore, the fact that they can convince him he already betrayed his co-conspirators under duress is dependent on his treatment beforehand having been sufficiently psychologically damaging to put him in a state of mental weakness. It's not a 'different strategy' proving 'enhanced interrogation' to be a failure. Instead, it shows that such techniques, if used as part of a broader plan, can achieve the desired results.

I find your reasoning somewhat compelling, but ultimately flawed. Part of what motivates these people is the assumption that Americans are evil, godless, and will treat them like animals. Even if the "good cop" approach is their opening move, it could still work simply by forcing them to question whether or not they're fighting on the right side. After all, if they are indeed captured by the evil-doers, why is it that they are treating him with dignity and patience?

It is difficult to say whether or not the "good cop" approach would have worked in this particular context as an opening move, but just because it came after torture doesn't necessarily mean that it was entirely dependent on the torture in order to work. In fact, having the "good cop" approach preceded by torture would probably be less effective simply because the terrorist will see it as an empty and manipulative gesture from their sworn enemies. However, if the "good cop" approach is the only one you see, it's harder to justify defending your allies who you know very well would not treat their captives as well as your enemies are treating you.

In real life, most cops don't think much of the good cop bad cop method. One cop on the escapist's "ask a cop thread" explained that it only works on particularly stupid people or children. Instead, cops and interrogators prefer a technique which involves pretending to be the suspect's friend, showing sympathy and trying to set up a rapport - the comforted prisoner tends to be lulled into a false sense of security, willing to either blurt stuff out to their new "friends" or more likely to confess to anything nagging on their conscience.

That's not to say that none of the other techniques are used - just that this is the most popular one.

I think that the debate has moved on from being about whether a film endorses torture to an old debate about whether or not torture is an effective/valid/morally justifiable means of extracting information. And that's a perfectly appropriate discussion to have, for which I'm grateful to the film that it's been reignited. But I'm still glad that there's a movie critic out there who's willing to defend the film itself.

I don't see what everyone is up in arms about.

If he was indeed tortured and it produced useful information that led to Osama's assassination then I guess it worked.

Torture doesn't always work, but it can work. The difference between a martyr and a coward is only brought into the light of day after extreme (or even just minor) duress.

Certainly there's the whole moral issue surrounding torture, be nice if it wasn't used... be even nicer if there was no reason to use it in the first place. But as always our way of living is being bought and paid for by nasty men with killers' hands who do evil things.

Espionage and information gathering is not an honourable profession. You can't run in like Galahad and expect good results. And the line between "interrogation" and "torture" is so blurred and subjective it's pointless to encourage one and condemn the other.

Abomination:

If he was indeed tortured and it produced useful information that led to Osama's assassination then I guess it worked.

Torture doesn't always work, but it can work. The difference between a martyr and a coward is only brought into the light of day after extreme (or even just minor) duress.

This is how it's portrayed in the movie. This is not accurate, despite Bigelow equating her film with journalism. The acting director of the CIA released a statement several weeks ago rejecting the claims of the film. Several weeks before that, numerous senators spoke out against the film's habit of inferring that torture resulted in valid intelligence for the Bin Laden mission. The problem comes down mainly to the fact that the movie is grossly inaccurate in regards to how the CIA treats torture and how accurate intelligence gathered from torture actually is.

Also Jonathan Hafetz had a great column recently discussing the 'false neutrality' of Zero Dark Thirty's torture stance: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/2012122582454397168.html

Blind Sight:

Abomination:

If he was indeed tortured and it produced useful information that led to Osama's assassination then I guess it worked.

Torture doesn't always work, but it can work. The difference between a martyr and a coward is only brought into the light of day after extreme (or even just minor) duress.

This is how it's portrayed in the movie. This is not accurate, despite Bigelow equating her film with journalism. The acting director of the CIA released a statement several weeks ago rejecting the claims of the film. Several weeks before that, numerous senators spoke out against the film's habit of inferring that torture resulted in valid intelligence for the Bin Laden mission. The problem comes down mainly to the fact that the movie is grossly inaccurate in regards to how the CIA treats torture and how accurate intelligence gathered from torture actually is.

Also Jonathan Hafetz had a great column recently discussing the 'false neutrality' of Zero Dark Thirty's torture stance: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/2012122582454397168.html

You'll need to forgive me for taking anything that the direction of the CIA says with a side of salt.

I would be upset if he was telling the truth, but what he's saying is a good message to have people believe.

I hope that those who are ensuring the safety of their respective nations are not above using whatever the most pragmatic options are at their disposal. Believe whatever tale they spin about how torture information isn't accurate so they wouldn't use it explanation you like.

If the CIA is making public statements as to how it carries out its operations then you can be certain it's not the truth. And if it is you need to replace those representatives.

Abomination:
You'll need to forgive me for taking anything that the direction of the CIA says with a side of salt.

I would be upset if he was telling the truth, but what he's saying is a good message to have people believe.

I hope that those who are ensuring the safety of their respective nations are not above using whatever the most pragmatic options are at their disposal. Believe whatever tale they spin about how torture information isn't accurate so they wouldn't use it explanation you like.

If the CIA is making public statements as to how it carries out its operations then you can be certain it's not the truth. And if it is you need to replace those representatives.

Bigelow's main source was CIA contacts, by your own logic her account is not to be trusted either. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that suggests torture had anything to do with the Bin Laden mission. The Gitmo Commissions and the Senate Intelligence Committee had already released several reports before the movie detailing how torture was not a factor. The NSA, NGA, and the U.S. Defense Department have all published reports detailing the intelligence gathering methods used to find Bin Laden. Not a single one mentions torture. Wikileaks also published several memos between the Defense Department and the CIA that also confirm the 'no torture' factor. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi were tortured constantly but provided no information on the courier's location or even name while being tortured. It was only several years later, in 2009, that the CIA were able to get enough information through secondary sources and REGULAR interrogation methods.

You can say 'I think this is a coverup and that torture was a factor' but you have zero evidence that was the case.

Blind Sight:

Abomination:
You'll need to forgive me for taking anything that the direction of the CIA says with a side of salt.

I would be upset if he was telling the truth, but what he's saying is a good message to have people believe.

I hope that those who are ensuring the safety of their respective nations are not above using whatever the most pragmatic options are at their disposal. Believe whatever tale they spin about how torture information isn't accurate so they wouldn't use it explanation you like.

If the CIA is making public statements as to how it carries out its operations then you can be certain it's not the truth. And if it is you need to replace those representatives.

Bigelow's main source was CIA contacts, by your own logic her account is not to be trusted either. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that suggests torture had anything to do with the Bin Laden mission. The Gitmo Commissions and the Senate Intelligence Committee had already released several reports before the movie detailing how torture was not a factor. The NSA, NGA, and the U.S. Defense Department have all published reports detailing the intelligence gathering methods used to find Bin Laden. Not a single one mentions torture. Wikileaks also published several memos between the Defense Department and the CIA that also confirm the 'no torture' factor. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi were tortured constantly but provided no information on the courier's location or even name while being tortured. It was only several years later, in 2009, that the CIA were able to get enough information through secondary sources and REGULAR interrogation methods.

You can say 'I think this is a coverup and that torture was a factor' but you have zero evidence that was the case.

I honestly don't know what went on with the information gathering. I don't know if torture was used or wasn't used. The people who do know aren't the type we can trust to tell us what really happened.

And it's something we don't need to know because we're not involved in that realm. At the end of the day a member of the US armed forced put a bullet through Osama, killing him. That's what's important.

Gearhead mk2:

Gorfias:
snip.

Allright then, What if I told you there were groups in the US that waterboard babies?

I'm not even kidding, look.
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=79263 [1]

But by your logic, that's just good clean fun, right?

Edit: Wait, those nuts are in Canada. My bad. my point still stands though.

Your point does still stand. By my logic, there are no goal posts. I don't write, by my logic, this is a good thing. I write that it is up to the members of that state to decide whether this was a good thing or not. If you think it is a good thing, I think you are nuts, but at least I don't live with you. But I would never let some international tribunal decide that matter as I think they are also nuts.

SixShooter:

Gorfias:

Link? Is it pain AND distress?

No. Even the mere threat of physical pain is considered out of bounds: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

"(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe... or mental pain..."

Wow! That is radically over broad! Thank you for the post. Calling a terrorist a naughty terrorist might hurt his feelings. When a term means anything, it means nothing.

The funny thing is, you don't get to fiat this. Maybe it doesn't matter to you. But like all torture apologists, what you think is irrelevant.

Says who? The UN? If so, I understand we have a veto authority there. We could waterboard an infant, have a vote come up that we violated the law, and over-ride it. Is that correct? I'm writing of course we should. You think not?

The term in meaningless

Your argument is meaningless. Just because some obstinately disagree about what "torture" means - that disagreement doesn't disqualify the illegality of individual acts

Yes it does. As I wrote above, the US can veto any sanction rendering it, for all intents and purposes, legal. I'm arguing it should as I think the rules are over broad and vague. In the USA, that would be considered un-Constitutional to begin with.

and the US needs to do what it must to protect itself.

Should the U.S. disregard any legal check in its pursuit of criminals?

You are correct, they should not. They should do anything necessary within reason, whatever the USA decides that is. Waterboarding and booming walls, sleep deprivation, truth serum, all seem within reason. And I'd have us decide what that is, not an "international community".

If torture is ok to stop potential plots, why not use it as a tool to fight everyday crime?

Because everyday crime takes place within the state among people with relatively common values. We can decide better for ourselves what is and is not, outside of bounds AND see to it that sanctions are evenly applied. But when an international body looks aside as virtual genocide is going on and does nothing to one country, while attacking the USA for water boarding, you know you have a problem with the opinions of outsiders.

3. That's precisely what's in dispute. Bigelow's propaganda film gives the impression that torture works. It doesn't.

I think torture works because, while I think I am a good and patriotic person, I know it could work on me. I think those that think, "it could never work on me" are deluding themselves.

So you've basically demonstrated in your post, what a terrible film ZDT is, and how warped the authoritarian defense of torture is.

I haven't seen ZDT yet. I think from what Daniella wrote, it does dramatize torture working. I've heard it is a good film and I look forward to seeing it. But I worry about what might be called the "polly anna" world view where one need think they never have to get their hands dirty with one monster in order to prevent the horrible murder of hundreds of millions. That view really is akin to reckless irresponsiblitiy. And it is always the path of least resistence to be irresponsible. I just must not sanction it. I hope in the future you do not either.

Have you seen the movie and found it terrible? You should not go on my view alone. A lot of people are putting it in the top 10 of their best movies of the year lists.

[1] By the way, I am sorry to link to that quote, but I just had to make a point.

Darth_Payn:

grigjd3:
Ever read the lyrics to "Born in the USA" and wonder just why it is that the pro-war neoconservatives seem to love that song? It's like they never actually listened to anything but the refrain.

Because the refrain is the one part you can understand through the upbeat music? It's like nobody on E Street Band had the guts to directly tell Springsteen "Boss, we love ya, but for this song to work, it helps to annunciate when you sing it, m'kay?"

The upbeat tone was intended. It's meant to be ironic.

Abanic:
I love how Bob starts by talking about journalists who have no grounds to be movie critics because its out of their field, but then goes on to take a stand on whether torture works. He's a movie critic.

Does the "good cop" angle work? Yes.
But it's part of a routine called "Good cop/Bad cop", you need BOTH to be effective. The 'bad' cop uses force (or threat of force) to try to accomplish the objective, the 'good' cop uses a smile and olive branch. You can't just use the 'good cop' side of this system and expect results.

I think the filmmakers were trying to have their cake and eat it too: they got to show torture for shock effect, get publicity out of it, AND say it doesn't work.

It's Bob Chipman. Half the time what he says is inaccurate, and the other half he is just plain wrong. He's the Escapist equal to Fox News, except that Fox News is occasionally entertaining.

SixShooter:
SNIP

Bob Chipman lying and distorting facts to suit his agenda. I'M SHOCKED!!! /sarcasm

I got to see the movie. It isn't a fun movie. It even lags badly at times. But I can't think of a better one that came out this year and highly recommend it.

Daniela made a great post earlier. The stuff described does occur on the screen. It appears enhanced interrogation techniques, which can be described as torture, were vital to catching Bin Laden.

Not a surprise here.

Am I the only one disgusted by the use of the term 'enhanced interrogation' rather than 'torture'? To me thats a despicable way of putting a spin on a barbaric practice.
Why not just call it 'Forceful Querying'?

Actually, in the place where that line was used, it was the _bad_ guys threatening it, to the extent I distinguished between good and bad. I don't know how long ago you read it, but you are leaving out some context. Where the line was used, it was to threaten someone into giving up a nuclear release code to detonate a particular nuke. The answer to your question - "[H]ow do you know what is the truth" - should be, in context, fairly obvious. You know it by the big mushroom cloud in the distance. I don't know what's hard about that, except that it does illustrate when torture becomes reliable, rather than a mere noise generator, and that realization - that it can be reliable - is very difficult for a lot of people to accept. In any case, it can be quite reliable when the information can be quickly checked, against another captive with the same information, against other intel sources, or - as in the given case - when you get instantaneous feedback in the form of an Earth-shattering kaboom.

Moreover, despite all the wailing by some intel types about how useless it is and how good they are at extracting information without it (but I assure you, not all intel types agree; many know it is quite useful), they're lying either to themselves or to everyone else. Why? Because the _threat_ of torture is always there, in the mind of the person being interrogated if nowhere else. Be an interrogation session never so full of ice cream novelties, the helpless captive knows it can turn ugly quick, and he never be seen or heard from again.

Another thing to consider: Contemplate the notion of the plea bargain in criminal justice proceedings. What is that, when you boil it down? It is this: "Tell me what I want to know or your pain quotient is going to go through the roof, in terms of miserable years being made non-anal retentive. Tell me what I want to know and I will reduce your pain." Bubba, that is the essence of torture.

tkioz:
I read one of those ultra-right wing "we do bad things for a good reason" books a while back, I think it was by Tom Kratman, and one of his central themes was "people say torture is unreliable, because people will say anything to get the pain to stop, well anything also includes the truth" thus justifying the extremely repugnant actions of his "heroes".

You know what? He's completely right, yes people will say "anything" to get the pain to stop, and logically "anything" also includes the truth, but that ISN'T the problem with torture being unreliable, you might get the "truth" out of someone after setting fire to their genitals, problem is how do you KNOW what is the truth and what is what the guy thinks you want to hear? That is what makes torture useless as a form of information gathering, you've got so much garbage and noise you simply can't rely on it.

And that's only the practical reasons torture is wrong, the moral reasons are far more compelling, after all we're suppose to be better then the barbarians we're fighting against, not stooping to their level, that's why we shouldn't lock people away for years on end without legal representation by declaring them "unlawful combatants", that's why we shouldn't use "enhanced interrogation methods", we're suppose to be better then that.

For what it's worth I agree with Bob, the movie wasn't advocating torture, it was showing it for the moral and practical obscenity it is.

A little information about what it's like to be waterboarded http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

Jack, probably because we live in an age of institutionalized fraud. That said, I think they were at least partly trying to draw a distinction between relatively light forms of torture and more serious ones (hot irons, the boot, strappado, finger nail pulling, bamboo shoots, electricity...you get the idea). Whether that distinction is legitimate one may well doubt.

jackdeesface:
Am I the only one disgusted by the use of the term 'enhanced interrogation' rather than 'torture'? To me thats a despicable way of putting a spin on a barbaric practice.
Why not just call it 'Forceful Querying'?

tkioz:
you might get the "truth" out of someone after setting fire to their genitals,

lolz plus+1 for the imagery there.
but i think that's more or less the consensus, that perusing intel obtained from torture is expensive compared to persuing intel obtained in other ways. couple that with the fact that it's pretty fucked up to be doing in the first place, there's an ethical and economic argument against torture. pretty convincing if u ask me.

I like Movie Bob, I think he's eloquent and knowledgeable, but I think this column in particular fails to represent some of Bob's more skillfull rhetoric that I've seen from him in some of his other writings and reviews.

limited to the immediate fallout from incendiary political columns

particularly those whose careers weren't premised on finding the political angle in anything

journalists from other disciplines try their hands at being movie critics

This seems like an ad hominem dismissal. Even if pretend movie critics have a professional political agenda, or they are deliberately trying to generate controversy, how do these facts have any bearing on the evaluation of the arguments put forth by these people or institutions? Someone having a political agenda might explain why someone said this or that, but an individuals motivations or ulterior motives should not be included in any criteria for which we evaluate the actual contents of their arguments.

I'm going to try and avoid getting too deep into any actual geopolitical implications concerning the film except where absolutely necessary (besides, there's another guy on the site who's better at that sort of thing than I am)

How would you, Movie Bob, feel if I wrote a column that was related to a film and then I just glibly said "there's a guy on this site whose better at film critiques then me"? He's not just "a guy", he has a name. You should have taken care to identify him by name, just out of professional courtesy. I'm not trying to be condescending, it's just that it's a little crass to say "a guy on this site" to describe a regular columnist.

Anyways I wish Movie Bob would have said more about the film's controversy. And maybe address the fact that the pro-torture isn't the only issue about the film.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here