I have always thought of myself as a relatively composed and level-headed person. But after I read the official military statement that six of the eight soldiers captured by MILF in Al-Barka, Basilan had been summarily killed. I flew off the handle.

I was not able to contain my rage. Like the outpouring of prevailing public opinion, I demanded for lex talionis, the law of retaliation---an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But having reflected of how I felt at that moment, I realized of how easy it is to be driven into the murky world of retribution. Such drive reminded me of what Sigmund Freud alluded to as the self-destructive energy of thanatos or death instinct. As a consequence, when it is directed outward onto others, it expresses itself in terms of aggression and violence.

Although I was taken aback by my gut reaction, I understood it.

If my anger temporarily clouded my judgment, I think it is because I cannot process in my liberal mind the sheer brutality and blatant violation of the rules of engagement. Never mind that those involved in the peace process can hypocritically speak of peace and war at the same time. Why be sadistic?

For me, the Al-Barka incident raises two important questions that need to be urgently addressed.

First, the MILF alleged that the military did not adequately communicate to its organization its mission in pursuing leads on the kidnappers and their kidnapped victims in the area. If this is true, then why murder the captured soldiers?

Second, the MILF alleged that the military encroached into its territory. If this is true, then why kill the captured soldiers?

What’s the point of this barbaric behavior? Are there no sets of generally agreed upon and accepted standards of behavior to guide our conducts in battles?

Apparently they do exist, but they were ignored and violated.

So what, then, is the point? Is it to instill fear or teach a lesson?

If it is intended to intimidate, the MILF has sorely failed.

The MILF and its militant ideology might have undermined its hopes and promises for peace. Rather than engendering openness in the hearts of the majority, they have now unleashed the seething stereotype and the self-fulfilling prophecy of Moro vilification as backstabbers.

If the MILF thinks that summarily executing the enemy is an effective lesson to be learned, I am sorry to say that there is no lesson to be learned or can be learned from this. Such an act, in fact, does not make sense. For how can one make sense of something that rejects the stipulated convention of the treatment of captured enemy forces or POWs.

As far as PNoy is concerned, rather than exacting retaliation, he is calling for an investigation to find out what really happened and to ferret out the truth of the incident. It is a calculated move.

I think this is his way of dousing highly inflamed emotions with cold water and discouraging those who call for an all-out war against the MILF. In fact, he unequivocally rules out an all-out war against the MILF.

Right now, we have a Muslim militant group that we are not sure is an honest and sincere partner at the peace table. And it is compounded by the fact that we seem to have a government that doesn’t protect our people from lawlessness?

Something is fundamentally wrong here.

I hope PNoy's commitment to the peace process will not be construed by the MILF and other Muslim militants as giving them the green light to continue with their lawless behavior.

In the end, the bereaved families will have to be listened to. They cannot accept and will not accept the summary execution of their children without restitution. And they cannot speak and will not speak of peace without justice and justice without peace.