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
The Drone Papers
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 3 recorded interviews · Last updated
The trove of classified documents leaked by Daniel Hale and published by The Intercept, later collected in book form as 'The Assassination Complex', exposing how the U.S. drone program selected and killed targets; John Kiriakou relied on it in his own writing on the war in Afghanistan.
The Drone Papers are the classified documents leaked by targeting analyst Daniel Hale and published by The Intercept, later collected in book form as The Assassination Complex.[1]John Kiriakou says he relied on the leak in his own book on the war in Afghanistan, Fool’s Errand.[1] The documents, he says, reveal that the drone program killed “blindly,” targeting people identified not by a cell-phone number but by association, “numbers of people who ever were associated with a cell phone that ever called another cell phone that ever called another cell phone”, then labeling all of the dead “enemies killed in action unless it’s proven otherwise, which it never is.”[2] Kiriakou notes the papers document an “infinitesimally small” rate of actually killing the intended target relative to the collateral dead.[3] He makes the same point about official “enemy killed in action” (EKIA) designations elsewhere, stating they are unreliable because casualties are presumed to be terrorism suspects or militants without follow-up investigation into their actual identities, meaning official U.S. government civilian-casualty accounts should not be trusted.[4]
The two figures Kiriakou cites
Summarising the disclosure in his own voice, Kiriakou gives the statistic and the accounting rule that made it invisible. During one five-month period in 2012, “nearly 90 per cent of those people killed in drone strikes were not the intended targets but civilian bystanders.”[5]
The second half is the classification practice: innocent people killed “were classified as enemies killed in action unless proven otherwise.”[5] Between them, the two facts explain how a programme could report almost no civilian casualties while producing them at that rate.
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.
