I don't mind sharing with all, but I am still hoping they will take them down themselves.
To be honest to you, I felt it is kind of weird.
Jung's extradition should be some kind of bad news to MS in Taiwan, however, on the contrary they saw it as an encouraging news! One reason is that China is notorious in its religious freedom, while the other one is that Chinese Justice system isn't that great either.
Therefore, Jung's extradition to China seems to be 'a good news' to MS in Taiwan. They think that a least he will get a fair trial in S. Korea.
MS in Taiwan doesn't ususally blog, but for the last two month, a lot of new blogs were set up. They start sharing their personal belief and conviction in JMS over the web site.
Of course, these exciting emotional expression are fuelled by two things.
First, some MS in Taiwan wrote an article discussing the implication of Jung's extradition under Chinese's extradition law. It is not written by a lawyer, or someone who has done some legal study, so the argument is really faulty. Nevertheless, the MSs in Taiwan are so excited over this article, so they post it on their blog. Careful examination on the article itself (i.e. you don't even need to dig up Chinese's extradition law at all!) readers should be able to pick out the logic flaw. However, how many of us have been found guilty of posting or quoting articles without first carefully examining arguments in the content?
Second, on the January 11th, CGM had a press release article claiming Jung's innocence, and the article was carried by Korean news media. Well, of course, we know this is a mere response of the media to provide a 'balanced' journalism to JMS's case. Just the day before (2008/01/10), Korean supreme court rule in favor the civil case against Jung by Japanese and Korean female victims. The news about China cabinet's decision to extradite Jung back (decision made on 2008/01/07) was just reaching Korea. Korean news paper carries this CGM press release article for balanced journalism, and this article was translated into Chinese (perhaps by CGM/CCYA itself) and made known among MSs in Taiwan. The MSs in Taiwan had not had any news about Jung for a long time, and they saw the first article about Jung is about Jung's innocence. By no surprise they are excited.
This two things all of a sudden boom the MSs internet activity.
Well, they are playing an limited information game.
About Jung's extradition. The author of the article layout a reason that Jung's extradition implying he commited no crime in China. If Jung had commited any crime, China would first raise criminal case against him, and probably jail him for a full term before he is extradited back to S. Korea. While what he says is true, and is a common practice in international law, he failed to understand that Chinese extradition law provided some room for Justice system make necessary arrangement. Under China's extradition law, China 'can' reject the extradition request if Jung is undergoing criminal investigation or criminal prosecution in China. However, it is only a 'can', and it is not a 'must'. So Jung can be extradited even he had commit crime in China. On the other hand, he also failed to see that the allegation that Jung had raped female followers from China, Korea, Hong Kong and Japan in April 2006 is an 'international criminal case'. All three countries (China/Japan/Korea) can claim jurisdiction over this case. While China is the place the alleged crime took place, Korea is the country whose citizen involved most (the raper and rapees), Korea is the country that has most severe cases against Jung, and most importantly, Korea had made extradition request (on 2006/11/30) well before Jung is being sought by Chinese authority for whatever issue. Extraditing Jung to Korea for trial does not imply Jung is cleared in this case.
While no one had seen the content of the extradition document (or the bargaining between two countries), no one is 100% sure what is the Jung's real legal situation. I am not a lawyer or who has done any legal study, hence my argument is also merely a speculation.
A the moment, I am in a series of email exchange with the person who post the article. I have already point out the false in his argument, and I hope he will take it down by himself in a week time. Otherwise, I will have to lay down my reasoning, then it more or less would be a bad press to Jung and MSs in Taiwan.
About the CGM press release article. Now, I really need someone to translate that Korean news article on supreme court's decision in favor to those victims into Chinese.