[iwar] Unrestricted Access to Information as a US National Interest
From: Stan Stricklen
From: sstricklen@landstar.com
To: iwar@egroups.com
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:15:34 -0400
fc Tue Oct 24 14:16:16 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Tue Oct 24 21:16:11 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-595-972422159-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Tue Oct 24 16:15:57 2000
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [208.50.144.69]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id QAA10246 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:15:57 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-595-972422159-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.36] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2000 21:15:57 -0000
X-Sender: SStricklen@LANDSTAR.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 24 Oct 2000 21:15:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 7753 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2000 21:15:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Oct 2000 21:15:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO jax-lcs-exch.jacksonville.landstar.com) (206.104.157.60) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2000 21:15:56 -0000
Received: by jax-lcs-exch.jacksonville.landstar.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:15:23 -0400
Message-ID: <07A2E562C1A9D311AA95006008F5E6B00203EB5D@rkinnt1email>
To: iwar@egroups.com
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
From: Stan Stricklen
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:15:34 -0400
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Unrestricted Access to Information as a US National Interest
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would like to hear comments from the group on the subject mentioned above.
In the traditional sense, this has never been considered a US national
interest, rather an instrument of power. I propose that this issue is in
fact of national interest to the US, which has yet to develop the
infrastructure to cope, nor has it developed the civilian assistance
necessary to protect.
Comments?
Stan Stricklen
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Cohen [mailto:fc@all.net]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 3:44 AM
To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Re: ??? lost you Fred????
Still here - just busy as can be... I have stopped providing the news
feeds because of lack of list real interest/response. Suggestionw from
members are always welcome....
FC
Per the message sent by DrewSchaefer@ftnetwork.com:
> Hello list and Fred, or vice-versa,
> I was soo busy the last two weeks it dawned on me today that I seem to
> have been unsubscribed from the list, or Fred is on vacation, or???
------------------
http://all.net/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/14/_/595019/_/972422160/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/