"why wasn't he tried openly in a recognized court of law rather than a military tribunal "

Because he was captured by the military on a battlefield in Afghanistan.  

Compare the sentence handed down to John Walker Lindh - a plea bargain for 20 years, while Hicks gets a plea bargain for 9 months.

1fastdog, I apologize in advance for picking on you here, but this kind of nonsense is exactly what came through in the write-up, and I assure you, nonsense is what it is. We have no indication  -- none! -- that the disparity between these two cases would have been handled any differently had Hicks been tried in a standard court. We can, however, explain the disparity a number of ways which are completely normal for court proceedings under every recent administration:

Charges: Lindh had a large array of charges impressed upon him -- six for different conspiracy charges, three for supporting Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and one for general "violence abroad." Hicks had one charge against him for support of Al-Qaeda, period. (A second charge, for murder, was thrown out by the tribunal judge on inconclusive evidence.) People found legally guilty of more crimes get longer jail sentences; how shocking.

Time served: Lindh's prosecution was over within 7 months. Hicks' wasn't concluded for over five years, all of which was spent (as though we needed a reminder) in Guantanamo, in jail. In any court, that five years would get applied to the sentence, just as it did here. So really, Hicks served almost six years of a seven year sentence; would only normal courts had such a harsh sentencing policy.

Mandated silence: Courts can and do apply suppression orders upon convicted criminals, for a number of reasons, especially when ongoing trials (like for the other Gitmo inmates, perhaps?) might be adversely affected.

And then of course, there's your final complaint: politics, which is quickly becoming the catch-all response meaning, "I want to be mad at Bush, and I don't know what the Hell I'm talking about." Did the Australian government pressure the US to release Hicks and/or reduce his sentence? Almost assuredly; it's their job to look after Australian citizens, even mouth-breathers like Hicks. The exact same thing could almost certainly be said for every other person released from Gitmo, with some other citizenship -- most with no charges at all, much less jail sentences! And yet, the amount of complaining at the time? Zip. Zilch. Nada. They were all poor unfortunates, caught up by the eee-vil Bush war machine, even the ones who apparently went right back to terrorism the minute they stepped off the plane in their home countries. Care to make a case for how the anti-Gitmo crowd has failed the nation for supporting those releases? If so, I'm all ears.

So the military prosecution is unhappy? Of course they are! Hell, I'm unhappy! As far as I'm concerned, Hicks, Lindh and every one of those fuckers still in Gitmo should be hung by the necks 'til dead. But this is not the same as being so entrenched with hatred that any criticism becomes valid, by virtue of being criticism. Any observer with a modicum of reason and self-respect would have to conclude that the fears of the anti-Gitmo crowd expressed before the tribunal's commencement appear unfounded: no manufactured evidence was presented, no dodging around the law to get an pre-accepted verdict, humane sentencing not forgotten. And then there's that gag order. Assuming the typical "ongoing trial" rationale to be plausable, shouldn't the timing involved -- 21 months after March, 2007 -- imply that Bush wants this wrapped up before, oh I don't know, the January 2009 inauguration? If so, shouldn't that count in Bush's favor? "Wrapping up the war" sure seemed to play well to the Blue Meanies in Congress when it was their idea.

So, 1fastdog, what I'm saying here is take Mark Twain's advice: count to 10, or maybe swear. Get the aggression out of your system before trying to make an argument. And of that's not possible, ask yourself your bloodthirsty neo-con pal (who has good music taste, at least) would agree with your criticism of Bush. 'Cause if so, you've probably strayed far enough away from your core principles as to be unrecognizable to them.