If the only reason for this persons "condemnation" of the US is the "NEW and IMPROVED" UN Human rights Council and our vote to reject it, I agree with our rejection.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14147215.htm
"Last week, the United Nations approved creation of a reformed human-rights panel that falls short of U.S. criteria for membership. That's disappointing because the U.S. proposal would have made it harder for serial human-rights violators to sit on the panel. But even so, the new Human Rights Council can turn out to be an improvement over its discredited predecessor if U.N. members are serious about restoring the organization's credibility in the realm of human rights.
Ambassador Jan Eliasson of Sweden, president of the General Assembly, led the push for approval of the new council. Among the reforms he outlined:
Suspension clause. Before, there was no way to remove countries with bad human rights records. The suspension clause creates a way.
Peer review. Members of the old Human Rights Commission were insulated from scrutiny -- one reason rogue nations consistently sought membership. Now, they would be first in line for scrutiny.
Majority vote. Under the old process, members were elected on regional slates with the support of a relatively few countries. Now, members must earn a majority vote of U.N. members, or 96 votes.
These rules are better. But the only way to ensure that the new Human Rights Council lives up to its name is for U.N. members to insist that all countries on the panel have a clean record. That means rejecting countries with detestable human-rights records, such as Cuba and Sudan.
To put it plainly, the United States got clobbered when it lobbied for tougher rules, losing the vote by a margin of 170 to 4. Having lost that battle, the U.S. delegation must work harder to make the new Human Rights Council a success."
If the major criticism is the so called "torture" of prisioners, then she is as misguided as the rest of them.