US will not seek death penalty for Edward Snowden

The U.S. will not seek the death penalty for Edward Snowden, the former intelligence contractor responsible for leaking documents revealing classified government surveillance programs, according to a recent letter from attorney general Eric Holder.

The charges Snowden faces in the U.S. do not carry the death penalty, and the U.S. will not seek the death penalty even if Snowden were charged with additional death penalty-eligible crimes, Holder said in the letter, which was sent to Russian minister of justice Vladimirovich Konovalov and obtained by CBS News.

The letter was dated July 23. The U.S. attorney general's office declined to comment immediately.

Snowden is currently thought to be residing at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport. Last week he requested temporary asylum in Russia in an effort to avoid prosecution by the U.S. government, which has indicted Snowden on charges related to the leaks.

Should he return to the U.S., Snowden will not be tortured either, Holder said. He would be promptly brought before a civilian court convened under Article III of the U.S. Constitution and supervised by a U.S. district judge, according to the letter.

"Mr. Snowden would receive all the protections that U.S. law provides to persons charge with federal criminal offenses in Article III courts," Holder said.

Snowden would be appointed counsel and would have the right to a public jury trial, according to the letter, and he would have the right to testify if he wished to do so.

"We believe that these assurances eliminate these asserted grounds for Mr. Snowden's claim that he should be treated as a refugee or granted asylum, temporary or otherwise," Holder said.Snowden has expressed an interest in relocating to Latin America, where Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have offered him safe harbor, but those efforts are complicated because the U.S. revoked Snowden's passport.

But Snowden is eligible for a limited validity passport for direct return to the U.S., Holder said, adding that the U.S. is willing to immediately issue such a passport.

Earlier this week Snowden was granted a document allowing him to leave the Moscow airport.

Appeals Court Upholds College Student's $675,000 Piracy Penalty

In the long-running case of Joel Tenenbaum, who was ordered in 2009 by a jury to pay $675,000 for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs online, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Tuesday that the penalty should stand.

The penalty came to $22,500 for each song infringed, which Tenenbaum argued was unconstitutionally excessive under the due process clause.

But in a case that was first brought in 2007 as part of the RIAA's aborted legal campaign against individual file-sharers, the appeals court doesn't see anything wrong with that.

"Tenenbaum carried on his activities for years in spite of numerous warnings, he made thousands of songs available illegally, and he denied responsibility during discovery," says the appellate court. "Much of this behavior was exactly what Congress was trying to deter when it amended the Copyright Act. Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that an award of $22,500 per song, an amount representing 15% of the maximum award for willful violations and less than the maximum award for non-willful violations, comports with due process."

Tenenbaum argued that the actual injury to the record labels was $450, the cost of the 30 albums.

The appeals court retorts, "But this argument asks us to disregard the deterrent effect of statutory damages, the inherent difficulty in proving damages in a copyright suit, and Sony's evidence of the harm that it suffered from conduct such as Tenenbaum's."

In making the ruling, the First Circuit had to analyze different precedents for how to apply damages and settled on one brought in a Supreme Court case that held that a statutory damage award violates due process only "where the penalty prescribed is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable."

Punishing piracy with a large award doesn't meet that test because Congress designed statutory damages to be a deterrent, the judges conclude.