Use your head for a moment. If the NYT had this story for "over a year" it means they likely had it prior to the November elections.

If there was any meat to it, they would have aired it then, so as to give Kerry a fighting chance.

Jeez, where to start?
1) There's meat to it. If you really can't find any in the news, let me know and I will point you to it.
2) Assuming your paranoid interpretation of the Times' reason for existence, you offer no explanation of why they held the story. Because it would not help Kerry is pretty lame. Who is it helping now? I expect the Times will come up with additional explanation for the delay. A lot of people are interested (not you, since you already have it worked out).

Like it or not, terrorist sympathisers and Al Qaeda operatives live and work in our nation. Like it or not, police, state and judicial instruments are often corrupt and unreliable tools in maintaing high levels of secrecy.

Therefore Bush (likely), shortly after 9-11 issued an Executive Order permitting the use of domestic surveillance by certain agencies of the Federal government. A flurry of eyes only level post 9-11 Presidential Executive Orders were so issued--most of which have assisted our government in halting terrorist attacks prior to their fulfillment.

There are laws that limit how and when and why a search may be performed, and especially what oversight is required. Secret executive orders may not trump these laws.

And assuming (* see last paragraph) that this story is simply about getting permission to do surveillance on US territory, then there was no reason not to get that permission. If there is some reason to not trust the judges (other than paranoia) then those bad judges must go, and immediately. PERIOD. Since no action like this was ever done I must conclude that your reference to corrupt instruments was more Techie hot air.

Much like the patriot act and visions of John Ashcroft finding out what books you're checking out, this is just another appeal to the hysterical and unhinged who harbor a paranoid fear someone is staring at their dirty laundry.

Errrr, no.

OK last paragraph: Like I mentioned in another thread, not everything in this story adds up. When all the facts are known, I expect some of this argument we are having will not be on-target.