Maybe a bit blunt ... he was a serviceman (thereby part of the instrument of state) and could be considered 'public property' becasue of that (it's the same reason we're held to higher standards). While I'm not a fan of the idea of publishing anyone's photo after death, the argument as already posted (if it was our oppos ors partners) is compelling ... it does set a very strong precedent.
What peeves me more than this is when journos invade the privacy of the families involved ie publishing photos of a fallen soldier's kids when the family has explicitly asked for their privacy to be respected. I can justify for someone in uniform -- I can't for associated families.