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 four-question torture exam
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
A final examination set by a former CIA officer teaching alongside John Kiriakou at Liberty University, consisting of four escalating questions about whether the student would torture, the terrorist, then his wife in front of him, then their children, with the last question asking the student to justify the previous three answers to God. Kiriakou describes it as the most powerful exam he has ever seen.
While serving as an adjunct professor of intelligence studies at the Jesse Helms School of Government at Liberty University, John Kiriakou worked alongside a senior colleague who had taught there for thirty years and had himself been a CIA officer early in his career. One day the colleague showed him the final examination he set his students. “It was such a powerful exam. It has stuck in my mind all these years. It was just a handful of questions.”[1]
The questions
The first is the ticking-bomb scenario in its standard form: “You have captured a bona fide terrorist. You know that a bomb is going to go off in a major American city. You have two hours to get the information and defuse the bomb. Do you torture this man? Yes, no, explain yourself.”[2]
The second removes the prisoner as the object: “Fifteen minutes later, the guy is a true believer. He didn’t give you anything. But you have his wife in custody. Do you beat his wife in front of him just to get him to give you the information? Remember, American lives are on the line. Yes, no, explain yourself.”[2]
The third repeats the move: “The wife’s a true believer too, but you have their children in custody. Do you beat the children, or threaten to beat the children? Yes, no, explain yourself.”[3]
The fourth changes the examiner. “You’ve died and you’re at the gates of heaven, and Peter refers you to God himself, and he says: now you explain yourself. What do you tell him?”[4]
Why it lands where it does
The exam’s design places the ordinary justification, that American lives are at stake, at every step, and then withdraws the audience that the justification was written for. Kiriakou pairs the exam with his own account of what the program actually did with the third question: he was unaware of any children being beaten, but says the threat was made “quite frequently”.[4]
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.
