A Novel That Offers a Chilling Peek Into U.S. Intelligence
Rav Grewal-Kök's intriguing novel seems intent on unsettling us from its opening pages, with coolly precise prose that sneaks nimbly around the periphery of its characters' darkest thoughts and actions. In that sense, you might say that this accomplished debut, 'The Snares,' has adopted the techniques of the world it depicts — a realm of shadowy intelligence dominions where even the deadliest actions are carried out with calm detachment.
We view this world largely through the eyes of Neel Chima, who, as the son of Punjabi Sikh immigrants, has never felt fully accepted by America even after graduating from an Ivy, serving as a naval officer, marrying a patrician young woman from the Beltway suburbs, and becoming a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice.
As a federal prosecutor, he catches the attention of two mysterious schemers deep within the C.I.A., who see in Neel a bright young man with yearnings and vulnerabilities that might be leveraged to make him do their bidding, even when their plans go beyond the usual moral and legal boundaries of clandestine service.
They engineer his hiring as a deputy director of the Freedom Center, which, with its newness, vague powers and bunkerlike headquarters in Northern Virginia, feels like a fictional version of the National Counterterrorism Center, an agency created in 2004.
The book is set about seven years after 9/11, in the final months of the George W. Bush administration and the first term of President Barack Obama, who, in attempting to establish his toughness against foreign adversaries, liberally employed some of the deadliest tools at his disposal, especially drones.
At the Freedom Center, Neel is expected to assess and identify worthy targets for those strikes. His sponsors' stated goal for Neel — to build the Freedom Center's influence with the White House by orchestrating high-value killings — comes with its own emotional costs, which weigh heavily on him from the beginning. But it is their enlistment of Neel in even more sensitive plans — involving targets on U.S. soil — that alerts him to the depths of the morass he has entered, especially after they entrap him with a compromising event designed to keep him more firmly under their thumb.
In chronicling Neel's descent, Grewal-Kök offers us vivid glimpses into one room after another of push-button remote warriors, not just the trailers in the Nevada desert where crews pilot drones thousands of miles away, but also the cavernous operations chambers of the Freedom Center, where Neel's commands play out on video screens with horrifying results. Richer still is the author's depiction of rival agencies as they compete for influence, at war with one another as bitterly as with their enemies abroad.
Grewal-Kök's icily clean prose is one of the novel's greatest strengths, yet also its most off-putting feature. While delivering the necessary chill with such precision, at times he holds us at arm's length from his characters. Neel often does the same with everyone in his orbit, including his wife and children, and only heightens this distancing effect. Some of the book's most oddly intimate scenes occur when Neel encounters other dark-skinned players within his world of secrets. In those moments, a code seems to arise organically between them, allowing them to finally speak freely of the hurdles and barriers they have faced since birth.
The ending, arising with a jarring suddenness, feels like a bit of a puzzle — either a hapless stab at redemption or a surrender posing as resistance. But the chill, at least, is finally gone.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Los Angeles' lawless protests: Letters to the Editor — June 12, 2025
The Issue: Anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles, resulting in the National Guards' interference. The progressive left has moved further away from the values of most Americans than ever before with their stance on open borders and interfering with ICE's attempts to make our country safe ('Red, white and spew hate,' June 10). They have taken this assault against America to a higher level with their attempts to normalize the rioting in Los Angeles. Advertisement Politicians who encourage this for their own selfish interests and anarchists who feed the flames of and participate in these hateful and destructive acts don't seem to have any clue that Americans reject lawlessness. We always have and we always will. Charles Sitero Advertisement Ormond Beach, Fla. The New York Times, Axios and other liberal outlets are trying to minimize the destruction of the Los Angeles riots by pointing out that protesters were centered in a small portion of the city. Can you imagine what the public outcry would have been if after 9/11, the New York media said, 'the destruction was limited to just a few blocks in downtown?' Any reporter who penned such words would be immediately ostracized as an insensitive buffoon. Advertisement Dennis Ricupero Port Chester Does anyone see the cynical irony of the mostly peaceful rioters in LA flying Mexican flags while burning American flags in response to President Trump's overdue crackdown on people who have no right to be in the country? Whilst all this plays out, the anarchists' propagandists in the media are gaslighting the public into believing that this is peaceful First Amendment stuff, as other outlets show cars and buildings burning and people pelting rocks at cars and officers. Advertisement Bradley Morris Queens I listened to Democrats say they aren't into the 'blame game' and want to move on when questioned about former President Joe Biden leaving this country in a state of disaster, which brings me to the protests around the country. Now Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass blame Trump for escalating the riots in their state by sending in the National Guard to protect our federal property. Where were these two criminal-sympathizers when they watched murderers, drug dealers and human smugglers infiltrate our borders? Gregory Topliff Aiken, SC Advertisement California should become its own country and see how it functions without the government whose buildings and presence the protesters are trying to destroy. Barbara Papatrefon Rockville Centre Imagine if Americans in Mexico illegally set fire to government buildings and then roared around on motorcycles waving Old Glory. Advertisement Would CNN, WAPO and MSNBC call them fascists? Would Democrats defend that behavior? Paul O'Keefe Union City, NJ Advertisement Watching the so-called mainstream media would lead one to believe the LA riots are mostly peaceful. Sure, just as in 2020, when several cities were burned down in similar riots. Why haven't they learned that we can see how violent these protests are? Larry Hootnick Advertisement Watermill Regarding the riots in LA over Washington's attempts to enforce federal immigration laws, our friends on the left have their view on the issue, as do we on the right. The fight here is for the opinion of the center majority of Americans. To that end, my question for the legacy media is: No matter how hard you try to bury photographs, how do you get past the image of someone spitting on a burning American flag in the streets of an American city? Warren Nitti Edgewater, NJ Yet again, violent protesters will be arrested, probably given a slap on the wrist and released by liberal judges. Can someone explain to me why we are not going after the entities in charge who are funding this anarchy and treasonous behavior? Cut off the head, and the snake will die. Mark Lanza Atlantic Highlands, NJ Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Constitution empowers the president to pardon civil offenses
President Trump has exercised the pardon power in ways that have defied custom and surprised many. He pardoned all of the Jan. 6 rioters. He has sometimes bypassed the traditional Department of Justice process for considering pardon requests. The Wall Street Journal recently characterized pardons in Trump's second term as 'the Wild West.' As in other areas, Trump has approached pardons in a way that rejects norms and maximizes executive prerogative. However, Trump has not yet deployed the pardon power in another way that would challenge convention and expand presidential authority: He has not tried to pardon any civil offenses. But he could do it. Many punishments meted out by the federal government take the form of civil penalties rather than criminal sentences. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau routinely impose penalties of millions of dollars for alleged civil — not criminal — violations, as well as imposing restrictions on the future conduct of the entities they target. If he wished to do so, Trump could remedy the regulatory overreach of unduly aggressive civil enforcement actions by pardoning the underlying civil offenses. The pardon power is succinctly set forth at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: 'The president … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' Conventional wisdom says the pardon power is limited to criminal offenses, but you will notice there is no such statement in the constitutional language. This erroneous conclusion stems largely from the Supreme Court's 1925 decision Ex parte Grossman, in which the court held that the president could pardon criminal contempt of court, but suggested a pardon could not apply to civil contempt. The distinction was based on the court's characterization of criminal contempt as 'punitive' whereas civil contempt is 'remedial.' However, this distinction does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the pardon power applies only in the criminal context. It could just as easily lead to the conclusion that any 'punitive' measure imposed by the federal government can be pardoned. Indeed, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grossman was at odds with earlier decisions in which the court sweepingly asserted that the president can pardon 'fines, penalties, and forfeitures of every description arising under the laws of Congress' (The Laura, 1885) and that the pardon power 'extends to every offense known to the law' (Ex parte Garland, 1866). There is no question that the Constitution empowers the president to pardon terrorists and organized crime bosses. It would be deeply incongruous if he could pardon heinous criminal acts but not, for example, civil violations of securities laws. The notion that the president lacks authority to pardon civil offenses is inconsistent with the best reading of the Constitution. The term 'offences' used in the Pardon Clause is a broad category that includes but is not limited to crimes. In addition to the Pardon Clause, the term 'offences' appears in the 'Offences Clause' at Article I, Section 8. This clause gives Congress the power 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.' This clause is not limited to criminal acts — the courts and Congress have cited it as authority for civil laws, such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. Further, the Pardon Clause states that impeachment cannot be pardoned, though impeachment is not a criminal offense. If the Framers understood that the pardon power applies only to criminal offenses, there would have been no need so explicitly to exclude impeachment from its reach. In the early days of the republic, pardons were used to excuse violations that today would be considered civil in nature. Federal civil offenses did not even exist in the late 18th century. Consequently, early presidents issued pardons for then-criminal offenses that would undoubtedly be treated as civil regulatory violations today. For example, Washington and Adams pardoned minor customs violations. Jefferson issued pardons for 'keeping a billiard table without license' and 'keeping a disorderly house.' Trump has taken unprecedented steps both to reduce regulatory overreach and to reassert executive authority as intended by the Constitution — for example, by removing members of so-called 'independent' agencies. Applying the pardon power to civil offenses where warranted is another legitimate tool available to him. Thomas Beck is the author of 'Constitutional Separation of Powers: Cases and Commentary' and is a former federal agency head. He served as an adviser to the Trump-Vance transition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
New State Merger Review Laws Could Harm U.S. Economy
U.S. states are ramping up their review of proposed mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Both Washington and Colorado have enacted new pre-merger notification statutes that will take effect this summer, and other states have introduced or are considering similar legislation. These changes could impose major new costs on potential merging parties and harm the U.S. economy. In addition, the Trump Administration may wish to consider revisiting costly changes imposed in a revised 2024 federal pre-merger rule. M&A Benefits As I previously discussed in Forbes, M&A activity generates major economic benefits by reallocating capital to higher-valued uses and thus yielding more efficient production and innovation. Specifically: M&A Costs and Federal Enforcement Oversight Trends As I previously explained, M&A activity may also, however, impose costs when it reduces competition in the marketplace. The Clayton Antitrust Act bars M&A transactions that may substantially lessen competition. A longstanding bipartisan federal enforcement consensus that targeted only those mergers that threaten to harm consumer welfare (by raising prices and reducing output, quality, or innovation) was overturned by the Biden Administration, which introduced a populist 'big is bad' skepticism of merger activity. These are 'early days' in the second Trump Administration. Nevertheless, new Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcers appear to be signaling that they will focus on improvements in merger review process, rather than a return to the far less interventionist pre-Biden approach to merger analysis. Indeed, the Trump DOJ and FTC have kept in place 2023 Biden merger analysis guidelines that greatly relaxed prior guidelines' standard for deeming a merger problematic. The new guidelines disincentivized mergers by featuring novel and unproven theories of competitive harm. The new Trump enforcers also have retained an October 2024 revised pre-merger rule. Compliance with the revised rule 'require[s] New State Merger Legislative Requirements Will Likely Prove Harmful At its best, alignment of state and federal antitrust enforcement efforts is an example of beneficial 'cooperative federalism.' States can enforce federal merger law on behalf of their residents. They also may challenge mergers under state antitrust laws. State statutes may allow a local focus on small state-specific mergers not investigated by federal enforcers. State and federal merger enforcement may also, however, work at cross-purposes. State merger cases may generate highly costly, wasteful duplication of federal efforts, and may occasionally be in tension with federal antitrust policy. The 2024 Model Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act served as the basis for an April 2025 pre-merger notification law in Washington, with many other states expected to follow suit. The Model Act gives states access to federal pre-merger filings, subject to the same confidentiality requirements that apply under federal law. Widespread adoption of the Model Act will increase filing cost burdens on merging parties and will subject them to a greater risk of having sensitive non-public business information leak out from a variety of new sources. Even greater concerns stem from the fact that California and New York are considering pre-merger legislation that sweeps more broadly than the Model Act. The new pre-merger burdens would impose major new costs on merging parties. What's more, the California proposal would also establish a far lower substantive standard for striking down a merger ('an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition') than that found in federal law ('may be substantially to lessen competition'). This change raises the legal risk associated with merger proposals. It could seriously disincentivize many beneficial mergers for no good reason. Policy Implications and Next Steps Taken as a whole, recent state merger-related initiatives threaten significant U.S. economic harm. The U.S. has the strongest most innovative capital markets, which are key to driving economic growth. M&A plays a central role in the success of those markets. It keeps rivals on their toes and yields more vibrant competition. The weakening of M&A based on new state-created burdens and legal risks would tend to diminish economic growth and lower American competitive vitality, at least to a degree. This is that last thing we should want to do in a highly competitive global economy. The Trump Administration hopefully will take note. The President might, for example, direct the DOJ and the FTC to make 'competition advocacy' filings with the states highlighting the economic harm that specific merger-related legislative proposals would likely impose. The two agencies have specialized economists and lawyers with a long and respected history of making advocacy filings, directed at both state and federal government entities. The two agencies also use the 'bully pulpit' to emphasize the importance of continued close cooperation between federal and state antitrust enforcers. Federal and state enforcers already cooperate and make joint filings in a variety of cases. New state merger requirements could reduce the effectiveness of such cooperation. Finally, the FTC and the DOJ may wish to take a second look at the revised 2024 federal pre-merger rule to determine whether some of the costly new requirements it placed on filers could be eliminated. Issuing a new less costly rule could be good for American M&A. It would also be fully in tune with President Trump's April 2025 Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers. Hopefully state and federal officials will take note and act to enhance the economic benefits of merger review.
