romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
Under Territorial Governor Thomas Meagher, Montanans held a constitutional convention in 1866 in a failed bid for statehood. A second constitutional convention was held in Helena in 1884 that produced a constitution ratified 3:1 by Montana citizens in November 1884. For political reasons, Congress did not approve Montana statehood until 1889. Congress approved Montana statehood in February 1889 and President Grover Cleveland signed an omnibus bill granting statehood to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington once the appropriate state constitutions were crafted. In July 1889, Montanans convened their third constitutional convention and produced a constitution acceptable by the people and the federal government. On November 8, 1889 President Benjamin Harrison proclaimed Montana the forty-first state in the union. The first state governor was Joseph K. Toole. In the 1880s, Helena (the current state capital) had more millionaires per capita than any other United States city.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the first constitutional convention held in Montana?
A: 1866', '
Q: Why was this constitutional convention held?
A: bid for statehood', '
Q: When was the second constitutional convention held?
A: 1884', "
Q: What year was Montana's statehood approved?
A: 1889", '
Q: What other three states were approved in the same year?
A: North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington']
The Homestead Act of 1862 provided free land to settlers who could claim and "prove-up" 160 acres (0.65 km2) of federal land in the midwest and western United States. Montana did not see a large influx of immigrants from this act because 160 acres was usually insufficient to support a family in the arid territory. The first homestead claim under the act in Montana was made by David Carpenter near Helena in 1868. The first claim by a woman was made near Warm Springs Creek by Miss Gwenllian Evans, the daughter of Deer Lodge Montana Pioneer, Morgan Evans. By 1880, there were farms in the more verdant valleys of central and western Montana, but few on the eastern plains.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What year did the Homestead Act provide land to settlers?
A: 1862', '
Q: How much land did the Homestead Act allow?
A: 160 acres', '
Q: What year was the first homestead claim claimed?
A: 1868']
The Desert Land Act of 1877 was passed to allow settlement of arid lands in the west and allotted 640 acres (2.6 km2) to settlers for a fee of $.25 per acre and a promise to irrigate the land. After three years, a fee of one dollar per acre would be paid and the land would be owned by the settler. This act brought mostly cattle and sheep ranchers into Montana, many of whom grazed their herds on the Montana prairie for three years, did little to irrigate the land and then abandoned it without paying the final fees. Some farmers came with the arrival of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railroads throughout the 1880s and 1890s, though in relatively small numbers.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the Desert Land Act passed?
A: 1877', '
Q: How much land did the Desert Land Act allot?
A: 640 acres', '
Q: How much was the charge per acre at first?
A: $.25']
In the early 1900s, James J. Hill of the Great Northern began promoting settlement in the Montana prairie to fill his trains with settlers and goods. Other railroads followed suit. In 1902, the Reclamation Act was passed, allowing irrigation projects to be built in Montana's eastern river valleys. In 1909, Congress passed the Enlarged Homestead Act that expanded the amount of free land from 160 to 320 acres (0.6 to 1.3 km2) per family and in 1912 reduced the time to "prove up" on a claim to three years. In 1916, the Stock-Raising Homestead Act allowed homesteads of 640 acres in areas unsuitable for irrigation.  This combination of advertising and changes in the Homestead Act drew tens of thousands of homesteaders, lured by free land, with World War I bringing particularly high wheat prices. In addition, Montana was going through a temporary period of higher-than-average precipitation. Homesteaders arriving in this period were known as "Honyockers", or "scissorbills." Though the word "honyocker", possibly derived from the ethnic slur "hunyak," was applied in a derisive manner at homesteaders as being "greenhorns", "new at his business" or "unprepared", the reality was that a majority of these new settlers had previous farming experience, though there were also many who did not.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who promoted settlement in Montana in the early 1900s
A: James J. Hill', '
Q: In what year was the Reclamation Act passed?
A: 1902', '
Q: What year was the Enlarged Homestead Act passed?
A: 1909', '
Q: How much land was alloted in the new Enlarged Homestead Act?
A: 320 acres']
In June 1917, the U.S. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917 which was later extended by the Sedition Act of 1918, enacted in May 1918. In February 1918, the Montana legislature had passed the Montana Sedition Act, which was a model for the federal version. In combination, these laws criminalized criticism of the U.S. government, military, or symbols through speech or other means. The Montana Act led to the arrest of over 200 individuals and the conviction of 78, mostly of German or Austrian descent. Over 40 spent time in prison. In May 2006, then-Governor Brian Schweitzer posthumously issued full pardons for all those convicted of violating the Montana Sedition Act.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did Congress pass the Espionage Act?
A: 1917', '
Q: When was the Sedition Act passed?
A: 1918', '
Q: What were these acts make do to laws?
A: criminalized criticism of the U.S. government, military, or symbols through speech or other means', '
Q: How many people were arrested from the Montana Act?
A: 200', '
Q: How many of the 200 arrested in the Montana Act were convicted?
A: 78']
When the U.S. entered World War II on December 8, 1941, many Montanans already had enlisted in the military to escape the poor national economy of the previous decade. Another 40,000-plus Montanans entered the armed forces in the first year following the declaration of war, and over 57,000 joined up before the war ended. These numbers constituted about 10 percent of the state's total population, and Montana again contributed one of the highest numbers of soldiers per capita of any state. Many Native Americans were among those who served, including soldiers from the Crow Nation who became Code Talkers. At least 1500 Montanans died in the war. Montana also was the training ground for the First Special Service Force or "Devil's Brigade," a joint U.S-Canadian commando-style force that trained at Fort William Henry Harrison for experience in mountainous and winter conditions before deployment. Air bases were built in Great Falls, Lewistown, Cut Bank and Glasgow, some of which were used as staging areas to prepare planes to be sent to allied forces in the Soviet Union. During the war, about 30 Japanese balloon bombs were documented to have landed in Montana, though no casualties nor major forest fires were attributed to them.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many Montanans entered the miltary in the first year of the war?
A: 40,000-plus', '
Q: How many Montanans joined the military in the war total?
A: over 57,000', '
Q: About how many Montanans  died in the war?
A: At least 1500', '
Q: Who trained at the military grounds in Montana?
A: First Special Service Force or "Devil\'s Brigade,"', '
Q: Where were air bases built in Montana?
A: Great Falls, Lewistown, Cut Bank and Glasgow']
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In the judgement, it is stated that the aim of the Genocide Convention, at its most simplest, is preventing the destruction of which victims?
A: entire human groups', '
Q: In addressing the issue of "in part," the Appeals Chamber found that the part must be a substantial part of what?
A: that group', '
Q: Which phrase is especially contentious within international humanitarian law?
A: "in whole or in part"', '
Q: What 2001 case was declared genocide by the International Criminal Tribune for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)?
A: Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic', '
Q: Who contributed to guiding the Appeals chamber in its conclusion?
A: opinions of respected commentators']
In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide. The ECHR also noted that at the time of its judgement, apart from courts in Germany which had taken a broad view, that there had been few cases of genocide under other Convention States municipal laws and that "There are no reported cases in which the courts of these States have defined the type of group destruction the perpetrator must have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide".

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Two bodies of the United Nations agreed with what restricted provision in defining genocide?
A: that biological-physical destruction was necessary', '
Q: A definition of what, by the States, was necessary to preserve and expand genocidal law?
A: the type of group destruction', "
Q: Which country's courts were noted by the ECHR for taking a wider stance on provisions of genocide laws?
A: Germany", '
Q: The ECHR found most states to have largely undefined definitions of group destruction, despite what factor?
A: Convention States municipal laws', '
Q: In its preparations, what was the source of other considerations by the ECHR?
A: the judgements of several international and municipal courts']
After the Holocaust, which had been perpetrated by the Nazi Germany and its allies prior to and during World War II, Lemkin successfully campaigned for the universal acceptance of international laws defining and forbidding genocides. In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that "affirmed" that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) which defined the crime of genocide for the first time.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In 1948, what general assembly resolution established genocide as a prosecutable act? 
A: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', '
Q: In which war-era country was the Holocaust immortalized? 
A: Nazi Germany', '
Q: Following World War II, whose bid was successful in establishing the worldwide acceptance and the nascent legal definition of genocide?
A: Lemkin', '
Q: Which group convened officially for the first time in 1946?
A: United Nations General Assembly', '
Q: While recognizing genocide, what did the UN General Assembly fail to do in its resolution?
A: provide a legal definition of the crime']
The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but these provisions were removed in a political and diplomatic compromise following objections from some countries, including the USSR, a permanent security council member. The USSR argued that the Convention's definition should follow the etymology of the term, and may have feared greater international scrutiny of its own Great Purge. Other nations feared that including political groups in the definition would invite international intervention in domestic politics. However leading genocide scholar William Schabas states: “Rigorous examination of the travaux fails to confirm a popular impression in the literature that the opposition to inclusion of political genocide was some Soviet machination. The Soviet views were also shared by a number of other States for whom it is difficult to establish any geographic or social common denominator: Lebanon, Sweden, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Iran, Egypt, Belgium, and Uruguay. The exclusion of political groups was in fact originally promoted by a non-governmental organization, the World Jewish Congress, and it corresponded to Raphael Lemkin’s vision of the nature of the crime of genocide.”

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Which provision was initially included in the first write-up of the Convention and then removed?
A: political killings', '
Q: What is one of the countries that objected to the inclusion of political killings in the early version of the Convention?
A: USSR', '
Q: What was the primary concern of other nations who objected to including political groups in the definition of genocide?
A: international intervention in domestic politics', '
Q: Which distinguished academic of genocide highlighted several other countries opposed to including political genocide in the Convention?
A: William Schabas', '
Q: What atrocity motivated a self-serving USSR to object to the provision of political killings drafted into the Convention?
A: its own Great Purge']
In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Which group was accused by the ECHR of having an overly constricted idea of the meaning of destruction in defining genocide?
A: majority of legal scholars', '
Q: What groups did the ECHR feel should be included as potential victims of genocide?
A: national, racial, religious or ethnic', '
Q: In 2007 what former case did the European Court of Human Rights draw on to further refine qualifiers of genocide?
A: Jorgic v. Germany', '
Q: What form of destruction was considered too limited by a smaller group of experts?
A: biological-physical']
The word genocide was later included as a descriptive term to the process of indictment, but not yet as a formal legal term According to Lemming, genocide was defined as "a coordinated strategy to destroy a group of people, a process that could be accomplished through total annihilation as well as strategies that eliminate key elements of the group's basic existence, including language, culture, and economic infrastructure.” He created a concept of mobilizing much of the international relations and community, to working together and preventing the occurrence of such events happening within history and the international society. Australian anthropologist Peg LeVine coined the term "ritualcide" to describe the destruction of a group's cultural identity without necessarily destroying its members.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Prior to being a formal legal term, how was the word "genocide" used in an indictment scenario?
A: as a descriptive term', '
Q: Who ultimately defined genocide as a series of strategies leading up to the annihilation of an entire group?
A: Lemming', "
Q: Lemming's concept of genocide triggered legal action in which realm?
A: international relations and community", '
Q: What was the nationality of anthropologist Peg LeVine?
A: Australian', '
Q: What relative term did LeVine coin to refer to cultural destruction, without the death of its members?
A: "ritualcide"', '
Q: What term was coined to describe the destruction of culture?
A: ritualcide', '
Q: What kind of scientist is Peg LeVine?
A: anthropologist', '
Q: What elements of group existence, other than people themselves, can be targets of genocide?
A: language, culture, and economic infrastructure']
The study of genocide has mainly been focused towards the legal aspect of the term. By formally recognizing the act of genocide as a crime, involves the undergoing prosecution that begins with not only seeing genocide as outrageous past any moral standpoint but also may be a legal liability within international relations. When genocide is looked at in a general aspect it is viewed as the deliberate killing of a certain group. Yet is commonly seen to escape the process of trial and prosecution due to the fact that genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power of a state or area. In 1648 before the term genocide had been coined, the Peace of Westphalia was established to protect ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups. During the 19th century humanitarian intervention was needed due to the fact of conflict and justification of some of the actions executed by the military.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What has been the primary focus in the study of genocide?
A: legal aspect of the term', '
Q: In prosecuting genocide, what must the act be formally acknowledged as?
A: a crime', '
Q: In a general aspect, what is genocide viewed as?
A: the deliberate killing of a certain group', '
Q: In trials of genocidal crimes, what responsibly party is difficult to prosecute? 
A: officials in power of a state or area', '
Q: Long before genocide was established as a legal term, what treaty was in place to protect various groups from persecution and mass killings?
A: the Peace of Westphalia', '
Q: Why does genocide often go unpunished?
A: genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power', '
Q: Who was the Peace of Westphalia designed to protect?
A: ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups', '
Q: What year was the Peace of Westphalia signed?
A: 1648']
Genocide has become an official term used in international relations. The word genocide was not in use before 1944. Before this, in 1941, Winston Churchill described the mass killing of Russian prisoners of war and civilians as "a crime without a name". In that year, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin, described the policies of systematic murder founded by the Nazis as genocide. The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill). The word is defined as a specific set of violent crimes that are committed against a certain group with the attempt to remove the entire group from existence or to destroy them.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the word "genocide" first used?
A: 1944', '
Q: What is the etymology of the term "genocide"?
A: The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill).', '
Q: What is the definition of genocide?
A: a specific set of violent crimes that are committed against a certain group with the attempt to remove the entire group from existence or to destroy them', '
Q: Who coined the term "genocide"?
A: Raphael Lemkin', '
Q: Who referred to acts of genocide in 1941?
A: Winston Churchill', '
Q: The word "genocide" was unknown until what year?
A: 1944', '
Q: In 1941, how did Winston Churchill refer to the mass killings of Russian prisoners of war?
A: as "a crime without a name"', '
Q: What was the name of the Polish-Jewish lawyer who first described Nazi atrocities as "genocide?" 
A: Raphael Lemkin', '
Q: What is the etymological basis of the word "genocide?"
A: Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill)', '
Q: As it pertains to violent crimes against targeted groups, what is the ultimate motivation within the actions of genocide?
A: to remove the entire group from existence or to destroy them']
The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Several considerations were involved in meeting the requirement to determine what?  
A: when the targeted part is substantial enough', '
Q: What is the key aspect of the targeted part of the group at the starting point of the inquiry? 
A: The numeric size', '
Q: The number of people targeted in a genocide should not be solely evaluated by what?
A: absolute terms', '
Q: In addition to the numeric size of a targeted group, what other consideration was useful to the ICTY?
A: prominence within the group']
In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis."

Questions and answers:
["
Q: The issue of what is raised by judges in Paragraph 13? 
A: perpetrators' access to the victims", '
Q: What is the basis for suggesting that several factors regarding the activity of the perpetrators be considered? 
A: historical examples of genocide', '
Q: The extent of what by the perpetrators was considered in an examination of their activity and level of control?
A: possible extent of their reach', "
Q: What will always be restricted in terms of a perpetrator's intent to destroy?
A: the opportunity presented to him", '
Q: While the factor cannot independently indicate if the targeted group is substantial, it can do what?
A: inform the analysis']
The Convention came into force as international law on 12 January 1951 after the minimum 20 countries became parties. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were parties to the treaty: France and the Republic of China. The Soviet Union ratified in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988. This long delay in support for the Convention by the world's most powerful nations caused the Convention to languish for over four decades. Only in the 1990s did the international law on the crime of genocide begin to be enforced.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: On which date did the Genocide Convention become effective?
A: 12 January 1951', '
Q: What was the minimum number of countries necessary to form parties? 
A: 20', '
Q: Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, how many were parties to the treaty?
A: only two', '
Q: What member ratified in 1970?
A: the United Kingdom', '
Q: The delay in support by certain powerful members meant the Convention was largely powerless for over how many decades?
A: four']