Privacy for Politicians, Peril for Citizens: Our Rulers' Golden Rule
📰 THE STORY: Mainstream media, through outlets like The Hill, report on Rep. Eric Swalwell’s advocacy for legislation protecting the privacy of politicians and their families, framing it as a necessary measure against threats. This advocacy is contrasted with his past support for policies that have led to the doxing and harassment of ICE officers and other government employees, presenting it as a
debate around consistency and fairness. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This 'privacy for me, not for thee' attitude isn't new. For decades, the US government has classified dissent as terrorism while shielding its own players. Think of the 1971 Pentagon Papers, where the government fought tooth and nail to suppress information on the Vietnam War, claiming national security,
even as its own actions led to millions of deaths. Or the 1975 Church Committee hearings, which exposed decades of illegal CIA surveillance on American citizens, including figures like Martin Luther King Jr., all justified under opaque 'national security' pretexts. The pattern is clear: state power seeks to control information flow and privacy for its own benefit, not for universal application.
Double Standard: The media frames this as Swalwell's inconsistency, but it's a systemic feature, not a bug. When US intelligence agencies wiretapped Angela Merkel's phone for years, it was a 'lapse' or 'intelligence gathering.' When Julian Assange exposed war crimes, he was charged under the Espionage Act. When 'privacy' is for politicians, it's a right; when it's for citizens facing state