You know, I'm well aware that the Post-and Andrea Peyser in particular-is the designated Ed Anger of our city's media scene, and I'm further aware that there's a long newspaper tradition of angry populism from people who know better, particularly when it comes to the criminal justice system, but reading today's piece from the Peys was something of an eye-opener.

The Peys is pissed about the pirate in our midst, particularly the way he's being treated in the courts:

US Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck mentioned the little pirate's family, and rumors that the young man was just a minor child. And he cried and cried, as if to prove it.

His taxpayer-paid lawyer, Deirdre von Dornum, several times cautiously patted the man's slender back and asked the judge to "give us a minute."

Also: "Here, he will be treated humanely, fed three times a day. He is sleeping on an actual bed, and provided a real, flushing toilet."

Well, you know, more of the same, right? But here's what struck me this morning: Shouldn't these be good things? Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that our legal system is-in theory, if not in practice-designed to provide the true administration of justice? That we provide counsel for the indigent? That we attempt to determine whether a defendant is old enough to be tried for the charges he's facing?

I guess not. The steady, toxic drumbeat that derides our "cushy" treatment for the accused in the country, which has been going on for years now but has taken on a particularly nasty edge since, I dunno, the Reagan years, is almost certainly the first step down the road to state-sanctioned, citizen-approved torture. It's not even that long of a walk. In Somalia, Peyser notes, "he would find justice at the end of a rifle." Here, maybe he'll just be raped in prison. But, hey, we won't shoot him. Or waterboard him. Although you get the sense that she wouldn't totally object if we did.

And don't even get me started on Delonas.