The PDF files give a fair clue as to "how the items were published." I just happened to bump into the following (which I posted - but not in its own thread), and know that some people are PDF-averse.
DOJ insists on legality of domestic surveillance in answers to House questions[JURIST] The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] responded Friday to Democratic questions [PDF text] and Republican questions [PDF text] from members of the House Judiciary Committee [official website] regarding the Bush administration's domestic surveillance [JURIST news archive] program, maintaining that National Security Agency (NSA) [official website] warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists is legal and satisfies the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [text]. The DOJ responses did not reveal much new information, but did indicate that information collected by NSA surveillance could be introduced in courts and that ordinarily confidential conversations between lawyers and their clients, and doctors and their patients, could be monitored so long as the program's general criteria are satisfied. The government declined to answer several of the submitted questions in the name of national security.
In response to the DOJ statements, top House Judiciary Committee Democrat Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) [official website], criticized the government's responses as overly evasive and the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] renewed its criticism [press release] of the government's refusal to disclose many details of its warrantless wiretapping program. AP has more. Raw Story has additional coverage.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/doj-insists-on-legality-of-domestic.php
In other words, the DOJ bitch-slapped the dems by pointing out that the courts Congress created to oversee foreign intelligence agreed (at least upon appeal) that the Bush Adinistrations actions were legal.
In other words, there was never a story here to begin with besides the slanders of the NY Times and the Dems.