Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All (5 page)

“Omar, thanks. I’m glad you told me. We’re not really concerned about that, so I’m glad we were able to resolve it.”

In clean Omar’s mind, even though he messed up, he was treated fairly and respectfully, and his loyalty and dedication to U.S. interests are bolstered. The relationship with this key asset remains solid. No damage was done. We’ll elaborate on the value of that in Chapter 10.

* * *

The transition statement is an exhilarating point in the interrogation, with a rush second only to the moment when you actually get the truth. Formulating the transition statement is exciting, because it’s the first time you communicate to the person that you know he did the bad thing, whether you convey that implicitly or explicitly. It’s the strength of the person’s reaction to your statement that’s so telling, because it often signals the level of resistance you’ll likely encounter the rest of the way. From a behavior analysis standpoint, the reaction to the transition statement can reinforce your confidence in whether the person is being deceptive. For example, if, in response to the transition statement, “Our investigation indicates that you’re involved in some way,” the person sits in silence, or responds with something like, “I can’t think of anything that would bother me about an investigation,” you know you’re on the right course. By failing to state with conviction that there’s nothing about an investigation that would bother him, he’s sending you the unintended message that there’s something there, but you haven’t given him a reason to share it with you. What he doesn’t realize is you’re about to give it to him with your monologue.

At first blush, the DOC and the DOG may appear to be rather mechanical and easy to master. That’s not the case at all. While the transition statement is somewhat formulaic in the sense that it’s a prepared statement that appears at the beginning of the monologue, there is actually a rather complex set of strategic psychological considerations that arise in selecting the phraseology. How well crafted your transition statement is sets the tone of the interrogation to follow and, more often than not, determines whether you’ll be successful.

The accusatory strength of the DOC and DOG depends upon a number of factors. Let’s say, for example, that your transition statement is, “Our investigation clearly shows that you’re the one who took the money.” That statement lies on the extreme end of the DOG side of the scale, and it can backfire on you because it sets the person up to make a denial. That’s something you want to listen for during the interview, but you want to avoid in an interrogation situation. You already have one hurdle to overcome: getting the person to tell the truth. If you allow him to voice a denial, you have a second, equally formidable hurdle: getting the person to admit that he’s a liar. That scenario can easily degenerate into endless head-butting and frustration, and getting the truth becomes far more difficult.

Here’s a list of some sample transition statements that illustrate the gradation from gentle to strong along the scale from direct observation of concern to direct observation of guilt:

• You seem to be thinking about something.

• Something is clearly on your mind.

• Something seems to be bothering you when we talk about …

• You seem uncertain when you say …

• When I ask you about _____, I can see some concern on your face.

• I’m a little uncomfortable with your answer.

• I have some concerns about what you’re telling me.

• Based on our conversation, it appears you have more to tell us.

• I think you need to rethink your answer.

• I have a problem with some of the things you’ve told me.

• We’ve completed our investigation and, frankly, we can’t eliminate you from our list of suspects.

• Our investigation indicates that you are involved in some way.

• Our investigation clearly shows that you …

• I’m absolutely certain that I know the
who
and the
what
. Now all I need to understand is the
why
.

That’s not to say that the DOG, “Our investigation clearly shows that you did it,” is never appropriate—it can be the most appropriate transition statement to use. The point is to ensure that your approach in determining the strength of your transition statement is governed by careful consideration of a range of factors, including your level of confidence, the sensitivity of the issue under investigation, the political dynamics, and the person’s level of sophistication. The transition statement is highly nuanced, so it’s best to have a number of arrows in your transition statement quiver that you can pull out, depending on the circumstances of the interrogation situation.

4.

UNCOVERING A SPY: THE ART OF CREATING THE MONOLOGUE

(
Authors’ note: Due to the sensitive nature of the case we’re discussing in this chapter, the foreign country involved can’t be disclosed. We’ll refer to it by the fictitious name
, Foeland,
and to its citizens as
Foelandians.)

At the World Cup soccer games held in a picturesque city outside of the United States in the not-too-distant past, a stocky, bespectacled young man we’ll call “Lee” was hard at work. A specialist in Foelandian studies who was fluent in the language, Lee had been appointed as an interpreter for the Foelandian team. It was a demanding assignment, requiring round-the-clock availability for the duration of the event. That was fine with Lee—he valued the opportunity to put his skills to use in such a prestigious setting, and the simple truth was he enjoyed being around Foelandians. The time he spent with the soccer players and their Foelandian overseers was a valuable immersion opportunity that, for Lee, rivaled a visit to Foeland.

Not surprisingly, several of the Foelandian overseers were agents of the Foelandian Intelligence Service, or FIS. One of those agents, whom we’ll call “Otto,” had struck up an especially friendly relationship with Lee, and the two often talked about their families and what they hoped to do with their lives. One evening, as they were leaving the dorm that housed the team, Otto asked Lee about his plans for pursuing his Foelandian studies. Lee said his dream was to get a graduate degree, and he was torn between universities in the United States and in Foeland.

Lee eventually decided that since it was often difficult for foreigners to study in Foeland, he would opt for the United States. Before long, he was enrolled in a graduate program at a prestigious university that had a highly regarded Foelandian studies program. Shortly after he arrived, he met a fellow student, an American we’ll call “Nate,” and they quickly became good friends. When they finished their studies, they went their separate ways to pursue their careers. Lee returned to his home country, and was hired as a researcher and specialist in Foelandian studies. Nate went on to serve as a case officer with the CIA.

As the years passed, Nate and Lee stayed in touch, at least to the extent of sending the occasional greeting card. And then, just by chance, Nate was transferred to Lee’s home country. He reestablished contact with his friend, and soon learned that Lee’s research position gave him access to information that was of high interest to the U.S. government. Nate recognized the potential intelligence value of that connection, but he certainly didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his friendship with Lee. He ultimately decided to approach Lee with the idea of becoming an asset for the Agency. When Lee proved to be open to the idea, Nate was both gratified by the potential intelligence coup, and relieved that his friendship with Lee was unharmed.

When the time came to bring Lee on board, the process of vetting him began. Phil was soon on a flight to Lee’s home country—it would be up to him to ensure that Lee was clean.

The plan was for Nate to arrange for Lee to arrive at a designated suite at a hotel in the country’s capital at six that evening. Phil and Nate got there early enough to ensure that they had plenty of time to check out the suite. They agreed it would be best for Nate to excuse himself after Lee arrived. Unfortunately for Nate, the only place available for him to wait it out was the bathroom.

“You can wait down in the lobby if you want,” Phil said. He was unsurprised when Nate declined. Nate was a good case officer, and Lee was his guy. There was no way he was leaving—he wanted at least to be able to hear what was going on. Phil stressed to Nate that he had to be as quiet as possible, because if Lee could hear him, he’d know the reverse was the case. If there was something Phil needed to elicit that Lee wanted to conceal, knowing his friend could hear would cause Lee to become that much more deeply entrenched in his concealment. If Nate had to flush the toilet, Phil instructed, fine. Other than that, silence. It was a fundamental tenet of the profession: Nobody confesses to a crowd.

Lee showed up right on time at six o’clock. Nate introduced him to Phil, and with this-is-how-we-do-it-all-the-time nonchalance, retired to the bathroom.

Phil and Lee took their seats. As Phil began the interview, he could see that Lee seemed nervous. While he took note of that fact, he knew that some degree of nervousness was natural under the circumstances, so he had no inclination to jump to any conclusions about what was causing it. Lee wasn’t exhibiting any deceptive behavior in response to Phil’s questions, and that’s what mattered. It was all going quite well, in fact, when Phil got to the question about whether Lee had ever worked for the bad guys.

“Lee, this next question is very important,” Phil said gently. “You’re willing to work for us—have you ever worked for any other foreign intelligence organization?”

Phil thought he’d seen it all. He hadn’t. Lee paused. Then he stood up, said, “No, sir,” and sat back down. He lowered his head and stared at the floor.

Are you kidding me?
Phil’s mind was reeling. It was as if this scholarly researcher had suddenly turned the clock back to the formal academic environment of his youth, and had been chastised by the headmaster.
What was that all about?

The answer, as always, lay somewhere on the best-case/worst-case continuum. In any event, it was weird. Lee and Nate were longtime friends, and now Phil had to determine what was up with Lee’s disturbing reaction to the “are you working for the bad guys” question. There was no doubt that Lee was troubled by the question, so it was time for Phil’s ideational fluency to kick in. He had a monologue to deliver, and he did so, calmly and reassuringly, beginning with a transition statement that took the form of a DOC.

“Lee, I know this isn’t an easy interview, by any means, and that some of the questions are very personal,” Phil said. “There’s clearly something that’s bothering you, and we need to talk about that.”

Lee was leaning forward slightly, with his head down. It appeared he had something to say, but he was silent. Phil continued, his pace unrushed, no edginess in his voice, no recrimination in his tone.

“Lee, this situation is somewhat awkward, I know. After all, you and Nate are really good friends, and have been for a long time. In fact, Nate was telling me about some of the things you guys have done together over the years, and it was obvious how much he values your friendship. He thinks the world of you, Lee, and he has the utmost respect for your background, and the knowledge you have, and the way you’re using that knowledge for the greater good. That’s why he approached you about working with us in the first place, Lee—he knows you can do so much good for so many people, given the opportunity.”

Lee looked up at Phil, and looked back down. Again, he said nothing. Phil was on a roll.

“We were talking earlier, and the only concern he expressed was that you might not realize how things work in our world, and what we encounter all the time. He 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.”

In the bathroom, Nate was struggling to hear Phil’s lowered voice. What he was hearing was making him crazy.
He’s not even twenty minutes into it, and he’s interrogating my guy? What the hell is he doing?
Phil was just getting started.

“We talk with guys all the time who think they have to be perfect. That’s not the way it works, Lee. It just isn’t. Listen, this is a little bit awkward for me, too, you know? 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. 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. 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.”

By this time, Phil was starting to get repetitive. Of course, that was the whole idea. Remember the infomercial analogy? The more frequently a person hears something, the more likely he is to accept it, or to at least be open to the possibility of accepting it. Phil kept going for the better part of an hour. Lee sat the entire time with his head down, not saying a word. Finally, Phil decided it was time to test the water. He needed to know where Lee’s head was at. To do that, he had to give Lee a chance to talk. Phil paused, and with the compassionate voice of a caring mentor, he took that next step.

“Lee, when I asked you about working for another intelligence service, who were you thinking about?”