Petraeus scandal: Did anything illegal happen? Five questions so far.

An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has now called into question the private lives and careers of two of the nation’s top national-security officials. Here is an accounting of what is known so far.

4. Was national security breached in any way?

That was the concern of FBI investigators when they discovered that whoever was using a personal e-mail account of Petraeus’s was also using a terrorist technique.

Specifically in this technique, operatives of a cell all use the same e-mail account, but instead of sending e-mails, they write messages and leave them in the “draft” section of the account. Whoever has the account password can then log on and check for notes, without having to send missives over the Internet.

That is precisely what Broadwell and Petraeus were doing. The FBI concluded that there was no breach of national security, since no one else was accessing the account. But now the documents from Broadwell’s home are being reviewed.

Lawmakers want their own inquiry. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is promising that his panel will hold hearings into whether Broadwell was given any classified information by Petraeus.

He cited accounts, for example, that Broadwell shared classified information about the attack in Benghazi, Libya, as a speaker. “It does seem strange that anything classified can go out in an unclassified setting,” Chambliss told Time magazine, adding that he was hopeful that at least the leak was unintentional. “The worse scenario is you intended to do it. And that’s what we’ll find out.”

4 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.