Not really. You can't be put in jail without due process, but the law in question explicitly (and arguably, unconstitutionally) suspends due process.
You could also argue that the accused "should" be the one to risk conviction and pursue appeals in an effort to get the law in question struck down by the courts, but one could just as easily argue that the government should recognize the obvious abuse and injustice in their reading of the 1918 Espionage Act, and use the power and discretion it has - precisely for cases like this - to extend their recognition of the public service he's done to the abandonment of charges against him.
It's hard to make the "yes but rule of law" argument in a case where the law in question is being twisted, stretched, and misapplied as egregiously as it is here. After all, rule of law is a two way street, and in a government ostensibly of, by, and for the people, an impasse like this should resolve itself in favor of the people.
You could also argue that the accused "should" be the one to risk conviction and pursue appeals in an effort to get the law in question struck down by the courts, but one could just as easily argue that the government should recognize the obvious abuse and injustice in their reading of the 1918 Espionage Act, and use the power and discretion it has - precisely for cases like this - to extend their recognition of the public service he's done to the abandonment of charges against him.
It's hard to make the "yes but rule of law" argument in a case where the law in question is being twisted, stretched, and misapplied as egregiously as it is here. After all, rule of law is a two way street, and in a government ostensibly of, by, and for the people, an impasse like this should resolve itself in favor of the people.