The folks who bring up the hole in the "human rights" calculation are, to a degree, correct. Human rights is such an abstract notion that we have trouble agreeing on what they are and defining them. This has been a predicament since the formation of the Republic, when there were constant arguments over what a "human right" is, whether we should enumerate them and protect them or rely on the forces of custom and tradition to keep them protected. Both?
How this interacts with American foreign policy is interesting. Thinkers as dissimilar as Washington and Jefferson desired the United States to be an Empire for Liberty. It was actually one of the motivating factors behind the Louisiana Purchase. There was an attitude of benign neglect though. If you look into Washington's Farewell Address (penned by Hamilton), you will find that it more or less says "we are a nation of high ideals and we will be reasonable in enforcement of these ideals abroad, but a positive or negative inclination toward any nation that has not given us a cause for war would be unwise).
This general idea was formalized and applied by John Quincy Adams when he wrote it as policy in the Monroe Doctrine. It was not perfect, but it was something. A policy. A directive to live by. Congress after congress, presidency after presidency, court after court up until (arguably) Teddy Roosevelt and (without question) Woodrow Wilson did their best to apply this doctrine and use it as a baseline.
To a degree, the Progressives were right. The expanding commercial power of the United States called for a reformulation of foreign policy. Instead of applying proper restrictions and rules that would make our actions predictable, they more or less opened the pandora's box we have today, where a nation's stance on "human rights" is seen as reason enough to draw the sword or extend a hand in friendship. Different generations and governments apply their own meaning to these words and we get the disorganization we have today as a result. America is overpowered in some ways and under-powered in others. There is no rhyme or reason as to whom she shakes hands with and whom she bears the sword toward.
We had intermittent returns to normalcy and breaks from them. Times when we came close to having a baseline, and times we have not. So yes, we have countries we allow business with that are on human rights watch lists. We maintain friendly relationships with countries that are not so friendly to freedom. Sometimes these friendly relations are necessary, but they should not be confused with a inherent positive or negative inclination toward these nations. Some nations we accuse of "human rights" violations are not banana republics in the least.
Take Hillary Clinton's shameful disrespect of Hungary as an example.
My point is this: we have no rhyme or reason behind them. I would prefer a conservative administration as the architect for a new sort of Monroe Doctrine, but I would go so far as to say that if Obama were to have one drawn up, I would not be entirely opposed. At least then we would have a doctrine of policy and formalization of values to debate over. A baseline to violate, follow, or replace.
A nation situated 90 miles from Key West that has been hostile to American interests since 1959 was given full recognition in a flash. Not good for business.