Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All (7 page)

Early in his career, Phil had been called in to interview a U.S. government employee who held a senior managerial position as a GS-15. The man, whom we’ll call “Oscar,” was under investigation for child molestation. Phil had routinely been called upon to conduct interviews and interrogations of people who were accused of committing some of the most horrific crimes imaginable. It was part of the job, and it had to be done. But this one was especially tough.

The ongoing investigation of Oscar had not yielded any conclusive evidence against him. The problem was that Oscar had failed several polygraph examinations, because he was having trouble with standard questions about sexual deviancy. That process had isolated deception with respect to sexual activity involving children, and Oscar never budged from his adamant insistence that he had never engaged in any such activity.

Oscar knew very well why he had been instructed by the security department to meet with Phil, so there was no need for pretense. Phil reviewed the polygraph results with Oscar. Unruffled, and with characteristic calm, Phil asked the question that had to be asked: Had Oscar ever engaged in sexual activity involving children?

Oscar scowled. He wagged his finger at Phil, and with unmasked contempt, responded.

“Young man, I would never do that,” Oscar bristled, glaring at Phil. “That would be perverted, and I am not a pervert.”

Phil didn’t need to hear any more from Oscar. It was time for Oscar to do the listening, so Phil transitioned into interrogation mode.

“Oscar, it’s obvious from the consistent results we’re getting from our polygraph exams that there’s something you’re thinking about that involves sexual activity with children, and we need to talk about that so we can clear it up. Listen, I happen to have two little boys of my own. Quite frankly, if I thought you were a pervert, I don’t think I could stay in the same room with you. I couldn’t do it. But that’s not what this is about. This is about finding out what’s bothering somebody who’s been serving his country with distinction for a long time. Whatever it is that’s bothering you, Oscar, I guarantee you, it’s not the end of the world. If it were, we might as well all kiss the world good-bye, because we’ve all done things that we wish we hadn’t done, and that bother us when we think about them. Those things happen, Oscar, without anyone wanting to cause any harm. In these situations, what we often find is that stuff happens, and it happens to good people. What I mean by that is we have situations where bad people do bad things. But sometimes good people simply make the wrong decisions. They don’t intend to hurt anyone, they just end up going too far sometimes, not realizing what the consequences are, or that anyone is really being harmed. If that’s the case here, Oscar, we need to talk about it so we can fix it. You know, I’m not a psychiatrist, and I don’t pretend to be. But I do know that sometimes things happen in our lives, often when we’re young, that cause us to do things later in life that we have absolutely no control over. If we did, they would never have happened. I also know that we live in a crazy world, Oscar. I mean, everywhere you look, you’re bombarded with sex, and you can’t get away from it. That’s a social problem, and one that society has to fix. We can’t fix that, Oscar. But we
can
fix this, as long as we address it openly and honestly.”

It was going well. What Phil was saying was apparently resonating, because Oscar wasn’t putting up any resistance. Phil kept going, repeating the points he was making, and repeating them again. When the time came to test the water, Phil did so gently, and with no hint of derision or sanctimony.

“Oscar, I know all of this is very embarrassing to have to talk about. Nobody wants to be in a position of talking about things that are very, very personal. Talking about things involving children is especially embarrassing in the society we live in, there’s no question about that. But sometimes the situation involves children, and let’s face it, kids are everywhere. Now, when was the last time you were alone with any of these kids?”

The disturbing nature of the rest of the conversation was such that we certainly have no intention of subjecting anyone to it here. What we can say is that Oscar admitted to molesting hundreds of children. He even shared his favorite hangout when he was on the prowl: a popular pizza and arcade chain that catered to children.

Now, let’s go back to the beginning of Phil’s monologue, and look at what he said when he was addressing Oscar’s seething claim that he wasn’t a pervert:

“Listen, I happen to have two little boys of my own. Quite frankly, if I thought you were a pervert, I don’t think I could stay in the same room with you.”

That statement wasn’t entirely untrue. Phil did, in fact, have two little boys at the time. But the indication that he didn’t think Oscar was a pervert, and that he wouldn’t be able to sit in the same room with him if that were the case, was untrue. Phil thought Oscar was as perverted as they come, and being in the same room with him made his skin crawl. Still, he knew he had to neutralize Oscar’s attempt to convince him that he wasn’t a pervert so that Oscar would abandon that tack. The best way to do that was to agree with him, notwithstanding the untruthfulness of the statement. The moment Phil said that, Oscar lost a key play in his game plan, and he was put in the position of having to rethink his approach. And Phil was right there to help him figure it out.

* * *

We’re occasionally asked a question about all of this that may have occurred to you, as well: Why don’t truly evil, coldhearted, hardened people, like Oscar, or perhaps a terrorist who senselessly kills innocent people, see this noncoercive approach as an indication of weakness or impotence that, far from compelling them to cooperate, encourages them toward what they perceive as an easy conquest?

Our response is to consider the underlying premise of the question. What, exactly, does it mean to be evil, coldhearted, and hardened? And to what extent is our own perception of those conditions authentic? To contend that those conditions equate to “I’m not going to cooperate or talk” is to impose our own logic—indeed, our own bias—on the behavior of another person. The truth is, human behavior isn’t necessarily logical, nor can it be expected to conform to our own expectations or biases. After all, what’s logical about molesting children? A psychologist at the Agency put it this way: There’s only a casual relationship between human behavior and logic. We simply cannot allow ourselves to assume that bad guys, or anyone else for that matter, will behave in a particular way under a particular circumstance. Our experience has borne that out, over and over again.

Susan Carnicero once conducted a screening interview with a job candidate we’ll call “Lucille,” who had acknowledged in a preliminary interview with one of Susan’s associates that she had had some drug problems in the past, but she stressed that she had long ago overcome them. When Susan met with her for the interview, Lucille arrived very casually dressed in a blue work shirt and blue jeans. The shirt had a logo on it, and as Susan proceeded with the interview, she found herself looking at the logo and trying to figure out what it was. It turned out to be the logo of the prison where Lucille had just finished serving time for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. She had to leave directly from the interview with Susan to check into a halfway house, where she was being assigned to help her continue her fight against drug addiction. The relationship between Lucille’s behavior and logic was even more casual than her interview attire.

6.

HOW TO TAILOR YOUR MONOLOGUE

At first glance, it might have appeared that Phil’s monologue in his interrogation of Lee was just a random stream of consciousness, a free-form flow of encouraging comments that spilled out in the hope that some part of it would coax Lee to fess up. That’s not the case at all. While the aim was indeed to persuade Lee to divulge everything he was attempting to conceal, not a word Phil said in the monologue was extraneous to that deliberate intent. Every sentence in his narrative had a distinct, thoughtful objective; each one was consciously woven into a meaningful whole, with no scraps left over to diminish its effectiveness.

Let’s take a look at the components we use to build a monologue, why we use them, and how they were used in Phil’s interrogation of Lee. Note that there’s no particular order in which the components should necessarily appear in the monologue.

Rationalizing the action

There is not a single thing a person can do that cannot be rationalized. You can come up with a reason, or an excuse, for absolutely anything. In a monologue, it’s a face-saving exercise that’s extremely effective in the quest to keep the person in short-term thinking mode. Here are a couple of examples of how Phil used rationalization in Lee’s case:

• “The reason is that genuinely good people sometimes get in over their heads, and before they know it, they’re thinking, ‘Jeez, how did I get into this?’ They got into it because their hearts were in the right place. I mean, let’s face it: Your Foelandian friends have helped and supported you over the years, and it’s only natural to want to repay them somehow. If someone does you a favor, it’s just natural to want to do him a favor in return.”

• “Because we know that people do things for all kinds of reasons, and sometimes those reasons just involve things that lie outside their control. Sometimes they just don’t realize how serious something might be, or that it’s a problem at all. They simply haven’t thought their way through the whole thing.”

Projecting the blame

We all know how easy it is to point the finger at someone else when something bad happens. It can be very tough to take full blame for something, especially when the potential consequences are extremely serious. So you need to make it as easy as possible for the person you’re interrogating to admit his own culpability. We’ve found it’s very effective in a monologue to convey to the person the notion that whatever it is he did, it’s not entirely his fault. So whose fault is it? Society’s, the school’s, the system’s, the government’s. Think big—bigger is always easier to defend, because it’s more nebulous. If you get explicit, you’re putting yourself in harm’s way, because it might sound as if you’re promising him something, or letting him off the hook. In his interrogation of Lee, Phil placed the blame on the amorphous sphere of “politics”:

• “So regardless of all the political stuff, Lee, I can fully understand why you would be attracted to the Foelandian people.”

He also suggested that the Foelandians might shoulder some of the blame, but he did it in a way that didn’t denigrate anyone Lee might feel an affinity toward:

• “Maybe your Foelandians friends took advantage of you—I don’t know, that’s not my call, and I’m not going to sit here in judgment of anybody.”

Minimizing the seriousness

To keep the person in short-term thinking mode, it’s essential that he not dwell on the potential consequences of his actions. A very effective way to prevent that is to downplay the gravity of the situation. You don’t want to dissemble by implying that it’s not a problem. But it is possible to convey some sense that it could be worse, and that the situation isn’t irreparable, with statements like, “It’s not the end of the world,” or “It’s a fixable problem.” You just don’t specify what the “fix” is. Phil conveyed that sense to Lee this way:

• “[Nate] was worried that you might think that something could disqualify you, when in reality there’s not a whole lot we haven’t seen and been able to work through. You know, Nate was saying you’re kind of a perfectionist, and the fact is, we live in an imperfect world, Lee. We talk with guys all the time who think they have to be perfect. That’s not the way it works.”

• “Nate’s my friend, too, and of course I don’t want to have to deliver any bad news to him. But that’s just it, Lee—it doesn’t have to be bad news. There’s no reason in the world why it has to be bad news. Because whatever it is that’s bothering you, you have to understand it can be fixed. It’s a fixable problem.”

Socializing the situation

We’re all social beings, so your subject needs to feel that he isn’t in isolation, or that he’s been forsaken. He needs to know that other people have been in the same boat he’s in, and we accomplish that by populating the context of the monologue. Here are some examples of how Phil accomplished it with Lee:

• “Lee, please understand that in our world, this is the sort of thing we see all the time. I’ve worked with people from all walks of life—mothers, fathers, students, government officials, corporate executives—who have found themselves in exactly the same situation we’re looking at right now.”

• “It’s nothing we haven’t dealt with before, nothing that would surprise us. I’ve been doing this for a long time, Lee, and I can tell you, there’s not a single problem that’s ever come up in this kind of a situation that we haven’t been able to work through and fix.”

• “I understand that, Nate understands that, everybody understands that.”

Emphasizing the truth

Your subject’s frame of mind needs to be focused on telling you the truth, rather than on the action itself. And he needs to be convinced that the
only
way out of the predicament he’s in is to be truthful with you. Phil made that point very clear with Lee:

• “What I do know is that this is a fixable problem. But in order to fix it, we need to get everything out on the table so we know what we’re dealing with. That’s the only way.”

Keep in mind, also, that word choice is a critical element in weaving these components into your monologue. You’ll recall that in the case of Jan, the pharmacy technician who misappropriated the oxycodone tablets, we referred to our
inquiry
rather than an
investigation
, and we said she
took
the tablets, she didn’t
steal
them. Similarly in the monologue that Phil delivered to Lee, note that in his DOG, Phil referred to Lee’s work with Horace in an
intelligence-gathering
capacity, rather than in terms of being a
spy
, or
conducting espionage
. He made reference to Lee’s Foelandian
friends
rather than to
FIS contacts
. Such harsh language needs to be avoided so the subject stays in short-term thinking mode, and isn’t beginning to think about the negative consequences of his actions.