Liberals and leftists, of course. It was their idea to demand that Libya and other awful nations needed to be part of human rights agencies at the United Nations, and even to be head of them. I presume that the basic reasoning was that the United States is the real bad guy, and so it doesn’t matter how awful things are in Libya or Iran because they couldn’t possibly be as evil as America is.
Also, there was the idea that human rights is a Western concept and we shouldn’t be pushing our concepts onto the world but instead should listen to other voices who may have different ideas about what constitute human rights. During the Cold War, for example, we heard that the Soviet Union’s idea of human rights included ensuring that all had jobs, food, and shelter and that these were more important than freedom of speech, religion, and so on. The trouble is that what is happening now in Libya is simply vindicating those on the right who thought the whole business was a bad idea.
In fact, the problems in Libya will cause lots of trouble for leftists (assuming conservatives are alert enough to press them on the issue). Initially, it looked as if the trouble in Egypt showed how awful our support for Mubarak was. But now that the trouble has spread to Libya, it is the left's support for dictators that is in the spotlight. While I’m sure we’ll be hearing from Chomsky and friends about how we “strongly supported Gadhafi,” the reality is that we didn’t support him very strongly, while leftist leaders like Castro are still supporting him. I mentioned this a couple days ago, and at that time Hugo Chavez hadn’t said anything either in support of Gadhafi or against him, but today’s Wall Street Journal reports that he has finally come out in support.
By the way, see here for a good article on Libya and the UN Human Rights Council.