We need to clean up our own act before we tell others what they shouldn't be doing.  

I would never suggest that our government shouldn't talk tough, because it seems immoral not to do so.  But, is there a verifiable track record of this sort of talk moving violators to alter their behavior?  Or, are we more focused on the fact that it is unseemly to not protest?

Of course, I can see how it could be argued that using appeasing, or just neutral, language would at best have no effect.  And, this could be taken as a green light for a violator to act even worse.  That must be the reason for concern.

Asia is all about face. What she's done is to create a huge face problem for the North Korean government.

unlike the bush administration, that saw the issue of "human rights" as so much rubbish for the pile, SoS Clinton (and presumably, the obama administration) recognizes it as a valid concern, and one to be pushed by the US. that said, if global chaos results, from not dealing forcefully with the economic crisis, human rights will never have an opportunity to be addressed.

Amnesty International is right to criticize US policy. US foreign policy is not formulated by Colin Powell anymore than it is by any other Secretary of State, particularly when it comes to criticizing a nation like China on Human Rights.

Taiwan and China just signed a free-trade agreement and the Asian region is looking increasingly to other Asian partners as US economic and trade policies flounder.

Voters chose hope over experience.

First of all, most people, and/or countries, don't like it. I mean, it's just a normal human trait; who likes being criticized? And in public, no less. And, for America, at least, passing judgment on other countries would be perceived, rightly, more than a little hypocritical in many, if not in most cases.

I certainly don't want to get into a back and forth with anyone, you know, swapping statistics, arguing the relative severity of violations, and so on. It will always be relative, and will always be perceived by different people in different ways.

As long as America has barbaric, and inhumane statistics vis-à-vis one third of it's citizens, She would do best to keep her mouth shut, avert her eyes, and talk about other things like trade, education, health care, the environment, etc.

Oh, and that little thing we had with Hillary and Sarah in the last election cycle? It proved one thing, at least. It proved our government got it right when it proclaimed that the majority of Americans are also the minority....women. Can you imagine? Sexism is so perverse, so hard wired in our country  that our brainiac statisticians in the DOJ had no problem putting a numerical value on the damage suffered by our female citizens..........25% I remember reading somewhere about (maybe someone here can help me out with this) statisticians being able to develop an empirical number, taking certain criteria into account, showing that a girl born in America can expect going through life enjoying 75% of the blessings our country bestows on its males.  

That 51% of us Americans should need to seek relief  from our government, and be designated a "protected group," is an outrage.

Clinton said nothing really new.  The Obama policy toward China seems to be the same as everyone else's for the last 25 years.

Amnesty was right to criticize the statement, just as they have been right to criticize our impotence on Chinese human rights for decades.  That's their job, though it is notable that this statement and thier criticism is nowhere to be found on their website.

But thank heavens that this is just Clinton going completely solo--not the policy of the Obama administration!  Reading this article linked here, one would not know she even worked for a government.  

At some point we have to accept that she is the mouthpiece for Obama here (yes...I know she doesn't disagree) and is giving the position of his administration.  Here is the only pseudo-acknowledgment of that in the article:

China has greeted President Barack Obama's administration nervously, believing he would press Beijing harder on human rights and trade issues than former president George W. Bush.

so much for pragmatic and getting the big picture BWAAAHAA!!!

Man these people crack me up!!!

   Detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use US courts to challenge their detention, the US says.

    The justice department ruled that some 600 so-called enemy combatants at Bagram have no constitutional rights.

    Most have been arrested in Afghanistan on suspicion of waging a terrorist war against the US.

    The ruling has disappointed human rights lawyers who had hoped the Obama administration would take a different line to that of George W Bush.

    Prof Barbara Olshansky, the lead counsel in a legal challenge on behalf of four Bagram detainees, told the BBC the justice department's decision not to reform the rules was both surprising and "enormously disappointing".

The exact quote from the Barack Obama-era Department of Justice?  "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position."  The DoJ and the DoD consider Bagram detainees "unlawful combatants" without any rights to access the US court system and with no recourse for release.

  If we are going to focus on honesty as a justification here, we should be very particular about word choice. This isn't an honest statement,

  An honest statement would read:

  "But we are unwilling to  press on those issues if doing so will interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."

   "Can't" denotes impossibility of doing something. We certainly could press China on Tibet and other human rights issues more adamantly. We just don't want to do so because we put other interests (our perceived national interest) first.

   In some contexts literal interpretation of statements might be considered nitpicking, but this is a context where speakers choose their words very carefully and Clinton did not speak the truth.

  If concern about the global environment was anywhere near a priority we would not continue to pursue policies designed to increase production and therefore the dirtiest forms of power production in China and other countries with the most lax attitude toward the environment. It's pretty clear we have little problem with carbon emissions (not to mention labor exploitation) because we value cheaper goods more highly.

Successful political leadership requires an innate ability to consider and account for the entire big picture, rather than merely those small quadrants of pixels in the upper left or bottom right corners. Why the good folks at Amnesty Int'l seemingly begrudge Secretary of State Clinton's ability to walk and chew gum simultaneously, I'll never know.