Follow us on social

After inspiring 'Zero Dark Thirty,' she wants to inspire your best life

After inspiring 'Zero Dark Thirty,' she wants to inspire your best life

Once called the "Queen of Torture," Alfreda Scheuer has found a new gig — and by the way, she doesn't regret a thing.

Analysis | North America

Where do career CIA agents who spent years overseeing the torture of suspects at black sites go when they retire? 

They become life coaches, of course.

At least that’s where Alfreda Scheuer, on which the 2012 blockbuster film “Zero Dark Thirty” was partially based, has landed, according to an exclusive new interview published by Reuters today.

In the film, Scheuer’s character is named “Maya Harris,” who was played by flame-haired actress Jessica Chastain (she won a Golden Globe for the performance). Scheuer, who had been with the CIA since 1990, says she left the government on good terms in late 2021. Her last position was deputy chief of Homeland and Strategic Threats. This is her first public interview, ever.

Today she is a “life coach,” says Reuters, “running a business called YBeU Beauty, focusing on helping women ‘look good, feel good, and do good.’”

Screen-shot-2022-04-20-at-5.02.19-pm-1024x609
Screenshot of 'Zero Dark Thirty' trailer w/ Jessica Chastain as "Maya Harris." (You Tube)

If you assume she might try to play down the darker side of her CV, like overseeing the torture of Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, “who was waterboarded and locked in a ‘dog box,’” or pushing for the extraordinary rendition of Khalid El Masri, who was thrown “incommunicado into a small cell with a bucket for a toilet for four months,” when it “should have been clear he was the wrong man,” think again.

In fact, in her bio for YBeU, she says, “I had finished a three decades + career as a senior government executive leading teams, mostly females, tasked with no-fail missions, taking smart risks, and even making life-and-death decisions. I loved every minute of it.”

To be fair, she tells reporter Aram Roston when he asks about the “enhanced interrogation policies” (torture) that were later (supposedly ) ended by the Obama administration, she says, “I won’t get into the details of what I saw,” but adds, “We took it as a solemn duty to get to the truth to save other lives. Everyone I saw conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism. It doesn’t mean I took any joy in it.”

Somewhere in there, as they say, lies the truth. Of course if CIA agents were conducting interrogations “by the book,” and “the book” was laid down in official policy as it was by the Bush-Cheney administration after 9/11, yes, they were acting “professionally.” But that is a low bar that smacks of “just following orders,” particularly when one hears about the actual “by the book” sessions with suspects, which ranged from bashing their heads against a wall repeatedly and waterboarding them, to covering them with cockroaches while stuffed in coffin-like boxes, hit repeatedly with cords, cables and other implements, or subjecting them to extreme temperatures, while naked.

And don’t forget the rectal feeding when suspects refused to eat and/or as “behavior control.” Many died from these interrogations, but we don’t really know how many.

There are words that come to mind other than “professional,” but there you go. Not all of these tactics were “approved” by the way — we know this from the Senate’s torture report in 2014. But according to the CIA, Scheuer was indeed the image of professionalism and to this day she maintains that such torture elicited actionable intelligence for the agency, though nothing considered to be exhaustive or even definitive has ever been admitted as evidence by the agency to defend its actions during this time. If anything, expert after expert has testified to the contrary; that is why the practices that became the subject of “Zero Dark Thirty,” a boilerplate Hollywood movie that took advantage of access to CIA/Pentagon sources and has largely been dismissed as pernicious pro-torture propaganda, have been excised (at least officially) from the agency’s “books.” 

That is why the military can’t prosecute the 9/11 suspects at Gitmo — they were all tortured and at least one has brain damage.

Ironically, former CIA agent John Kiriakou also witnessed the more than 80 waterboarding sessions of Abu Zubaydah (who was never charged but is still a prisoner at Gitmo, sans one eye). But unlike Scheuer, he couldn’t take it on his conscience and went public with what he saw. The CIA made sure he paid, and Kiriakou did more than two years in prison. He was and is a government pariah to this day. Scheuer, once referred to as the “queen of torture,” embraced her role during those torture sessions, which was gobbled up by award-winning director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal, and she is now living her best life as a life coach. 

“I got that title because I was in the arena,” she said. “In fact, I raised my hand loud and proud and you know, I don't regret it at all.”

UPDATE 4/21: Asked about Scheuer's new gig, John Kiriakou didn't hold back his disgust with her former CIA role: “If you want to be coached in how to set up and carry out a torture program, international renditions, or a secret prison system...Alfreda Scheuer’s YBeU is just what you’ve been waiting for!”


Ex-CIA analyst Alfreda Scheuer is shown in a screenshot of her beauty and life coaching website YBeU Beauty Personal Coaching. YBeU Beauty via REUTERS|Screenshot of 'Zero Dark Thirty' trailer w/ Jessica Chastain as "Maya Davis." (You Tube)
Analysis | North America
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.