Regarding the Jan. 26 front-page article “How Petraeus avoided felony charges over leak”:

Retired Gen. David H. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information. He also admitted that his statements to the FBI “were false.” He was sentenced to two years probation and a $100,000 fine.

The article reported that the Justice Department contemplated felony charges, including lying to the FBI and violating the Espionage Act. Apparently, Mr. Petraeus admitted during the investigation that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information that could have caused “exceptionally grave damage” to national security. Some people convicted of similar offenses are serving long prison terms.

Mr. Petraeus’s lawyers convinced the Justice Department that it could not be proved that Mr. Petraeus intended to do damage by his actions, an element of proof required under the Espionage Act. They also claimed that some of the information was already in the public domain. National security policy is that previous disclosure of classified information does not declassify it or make its disclosure any less damaging.

The Justice Department’s rationale for not pursuing more serious charges in this case is not clear. Former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. said only that there were factors that made the resolution appropriate. Based on previous actions against people who engaged in much less serious conduct involving the disclosure, compromise and mishandling of classified information, the outcome of this case is incomprehensible.

Maynard C. Anderson, Alexandria

The writer was acting deputy undersecretary of defense for security policy from 1993 to 1994.