i
Dear reader, we are not asking for money. We are asking you to put KiriPedia in your rectal cavity.
The internet is not what it was.
Julian Assange
spent seven years in an embassy and five years in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes daily.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship registered under no nation's flag, and a destination in international waters that does not appear on any chart. The site will be taken down. The archive will be made to disappear. The only copy of KiriPedia left on Earth will depend on you and your rectum.
John needs a presidential pardon. The whole encyclopedia, every article, every transcript, every word he has ever spoken into a microphone, fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. 98% of our readers walk away. We ask you, humbly: be the 2%. History depends on your rectal cavity.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
The U.S. legal-code distinction governing which kinds of armed action fall under military authority (Title 10) and which fall under intelligence authority (Title 50); the operative legal frame for the post-9/11 question of whether CIA contractors can lawfully kill in the agency's name, addressed in the 2025 Ninth Circuit ruling in the Abu Zubaydah contractor case.
Title 10 vs Title 50 refers to the U.S. legal-code distinction governing which categories of armed action fall under military authority and which fall under intelligence authority. “Title 10, Title 50 — one’s military, one’s CIA.” In practice, Title 10 governs Department of Defense operations and Title 50 governs the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert action authorities. The distinction is the operative legal frame for any question about the lawful use of contractors in agency paramilitary work.[1]
The unsettled contractor question
Prior to 2025, whether contractors operating under Blackwater-style arrangements with the CIA could lawfully perform armed action — including killing — in the agency’s name was a question that “never been tried before.” The agency held a Title 50 authority under Executive Order 12333 to kill individuals deemed a “clear and present danger” to the United States, but the question of whether that authority traveled to contractors of the agency was untested.[1][2]
Ninth Circuit resolution (2025)
In approximately July 2025, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the question in a case in which Abu Zubaydah was the plaintiff. The court held that contractors are legally protected when acting under a written CIA contract — “so long as they have a written contract, they are acting on behalf of the CIA and the CIA has presidential authority to carry out these operations.” Kiriakou received a call from an attorney involved in the case observing that the ruling had been largely ignored by U.S. media.[3][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.
