Sir: Colin Burke asks rhetorically, "Would an Iraqi who betrayed Saddam Hussein's secrets be guilty of an immoral act?" (letter, 14 September). Indeed not: he would be subverting a tyranny, at immense personal risk. By contrast, Melita Norwood served a totalitarian and expansionist power in preference to her own country, a liberal democracy, at - we now know - no cost to herself (other than, presumably, forfeiting the trust of her family and ex-colleagues). Does Mr Burke really need to have the moral difference between these courses spelled out?