i just want to point out that there's no contradiction in criticizing the administration for it's tactics on human rights grounds and working up reports to justify further intervention elsewhere. liberal interventionism is a weird animal. but it doesn't see anything wrong with arguing we should blow up libya to get rid of ghaddafi and arguing that we should use democratic processes to modify our own behaviour, too [although it would never argue libya should use legal means to reform itself, or that ghadaffi should blow up washington]. and it can be legit, too.
so, you shouldn't get caught in this trap that suggests that criticism of the american record on human rights somehow means the group isn't working to justify intervention. it's just wrong.