The price of a scoop: two dead

 Tunku Varadarajan writes on Forbes.com:

What should one make of the tale of Stephen Farrell--the seemingly reckless New York Times reporter who was rescued by British soldiers on Sept. 9 after spending four days as a captive of the Taliban? A soldier died in the course of his rescue, leading sections of British public opinion to go ballistic, accusing Farrell not merely of selfishness, but of moral responsibility for the soldier's death. Is this reaction fair and justified?

Stephen Farrell was a British citizen reporting from Afghanistan. He'd received very strong advice from British troops to stay out of a Taliban-controlled sector into which he was planning to venture in search of a story. Ignoring that advice, Farrell entered the sector with his Afghan interpreter. Both men were seized by the Taliban within hours, and held captive in conditions that led the British to fear for the life of one of their citizens--hence the rescue mission, in which a British soldier was killed. (The hapless interpreter died, too.)

Let me begin by inverting the moral question and asking not whether Farrell--whose action in defiance of advice had generated an entirely avoidable need for rescue--bears moral responsibility for the soldier's death, but whether the Brits were entitled not to seek to rescue him. The rational answer has to be "yes." After all, the disregard of specific advice has to have some consequence. And did not Farrell assume the risk of some harm befalling him? So why not allow him to suffer the effects of his own recklessness?