Article content continued

Knowing that we do not know the name of The Perpetrator, or know whether we want to say it, we also know that we can’t know all that must be accounted for.

But assuming that it’s of some relevance that there are some striking similarities between this attack and some other attacks, for which attacks should we hold someone to account? Well, our standards should be both high and low.

In one respect, the threshold for accountability must be nearly impossible to reach. We mustn’t hold anyone accountable for deploying scud missiles and barrel bombs, obviously, which The Perpetrator has used to kill many more Syrian people than this week’s gassing. And there’s no justification for holding him/her to account for regularly putting hospitals, schools and marketplaces in his/her crosshairs. Heinous and widespread torture still doesn’t meet the standard for punishing a war criminal, whoever that anonymous person may be. Nor does laying such terrible siege to cities that people starve to death. Nor does lining people up against a wall and executing them en masse. We must not even hold The Perpetrator to account for all the chemical attacks that came before another chemical attack.

No, serial genocidal travesties, while unfortunate, are permissible. One isolated travesty of which we happen to take note, however — now, that is punishable. It is in this way that our standards must be as low as they are high, you see. The lowest possible number of crimes — and only the lowest possible number of crimes — is intolerable. While multiple crimes against humanity must be allowed, a single crime cannot stand.