iDear reader,we are not begging for money.We are asking youto put KiriPedia up your ass.
Julian Assange
did seven years in an embassy and five in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes every day.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship with no flag, and a destination on no chart. The website goes down. The archive vanishes. History depends on your rectal cavity.
The whole encyclopedia (every article, every transcript, every word John has ever spoken into a microphone) fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. In you.
John did 23 months in federal prison. As a convicted felon he is still barred from voting, from keeping and bearing arms, and from the federal pension he earned over 14 years at the CIA. A pardon restores all three.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
KiriPedia is not a nonprofit. Honestly, this isn't even about the money.
I already inserted one
"I had no intent"
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 2 recorded interviews · Last updated
The formula John Kiriakou used in the days around his January 2013 sentencing to describe his own guilty plea, that he had committed the act charged but had neither the intent to commit a crime nor the intent to harm the officer he named, having believed the man was retired and available to be interviewed.
In the days around his sentencing, John Kiriakou settled on a formulation he has used since: an admission of the act, coupled with a denial of the intent.
The formula
Asked about the offence, he answered: “Did I commit that crime? Yes I did. I didn’t have any intent to commit a crime, I didn’t have any intent to harm this individual.”[1]
The factual account behind it is that he had sent the name of a covert CIA officer to a reporter believing the man had retired and could therefore be interviewed. He had not.[2]
Why the distinction has no legal effect
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act count to which he pleaded does not turn on an intent to harm, which is why the admission and the denial can both stand. Kiriakou has been consistent that his charge concerned a single name, confirmed rather than volunteered, which was never published by the reporter who received it.
He was, on his own account and on that of contemporaneous reporting, the first current or former CIA officer convicted of the offence, and the first American imprisoned in connection with waterboarding, “not for having committed it but for having blown the whistle on it.”[3]
The asymmetry he attaches to it
Kiriakou immediately places the plea inside the comparison he considers the point of the case: “the only person who’s going to prison for having anything related to do with the torture regime is the guy who blew the whistle on the torture. The torturers aren’t going to prison. The people who ordered or conceived of the torture aren’t going to prison.”[4]
That is the sense in which he calls the conviction politically motivated. He does not argue that the statute was misread, only that it was reached for.
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
