romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
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.

Q1: When did Congress pass the Espionage Act?
A1: 1917
Q2: When was the Sedition Act passed?
A2: 1918
Q3: What were these acts make do to laws?
A3: criminalized criticism of the U.S. government, military, or symbols through speech or other means
Q4: How many people were arrested from the Montana Act?
A4: 200
Q5: How many of the 200 arrested in the Montana Act were convicted?
A5: 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.

Q1: How many Montanans entered the miltary in the first year of the war?
A1: 40,000-plus
Q2: How many Montanans joined the military in the war total?
A2: over 57,000
Q3: About how many Montanans  died in the war?
A3: At least 1500
Q4: Who trained at the military grounds in Montana?
A4: First Special Service Force or "Devil's Brigade,"
Q5: Where were air bases built in Montana?
A5: 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.

Q1: In the judgement, it is stated that the aim of the Genocide Convention, at its most simplest, is preventing the destruction of which victims?
A1: entire human groups
Q2: In addressing the issue of "in part," the Appeals Chamber found that the part must be a substantial part of what?
A2: that group
Q3: Which phrase is especially contentious within international humanitarian law?
A3: "in whole or in part"
Q4: What 2001 case was declared genocide by the International Criminal Tribune for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)?
A4: Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic
Q5: Who contributed to guiding the Appeals chamber in its conclusion?
A5: 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".

Q1: Two bodies of the United Nations agreed with what restricted provision in defining genocide?
A1: that biological-physical destruction was necessary
Q2: A definition of what, by the States, was necessary to preserve and expand genocidal law?
A2: the type of group destruction
Q3: Which country's courts were noted by the ECHR for taking a wider stance on provisions of genocide laws?
A3: Germany
Q4: The ECHR found most states to have largely undefined definitions of group destruction, despite what factor?
A4: Convention States municipal laws
Q5: In its preparations, what was the source of other considerations by the ECHR?
A5: 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.

Q1: In 1948, what general assembly resolution established genocide as a prosecutable act?
A1: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Q2: In which war-era country was the Holocaust immortalized?
A2: Nazi Germany
Q3: Following World War II, whose bid was successful in establishing the worldwide acceptance and the nascent legal definition of genocide?
A3: Lemkin
Q4: Which group convened officially for the first time in 1946?
A4: United Nations General Assembly
Q5: While recognizing genocide, what did the UN General Assembly fail to do in its resolution?
A5: 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.”

Q1: Which provision was initially included in the first write-up of the Convention and then removed?
A1: political killings
Q2: What is one of the countries that objected to the inclusion of political killings in the early version of the Convention?
A2: USSR
Q3: What was the primary concern of other nations who objected to including political groups in the definition of genocide?
A3: international intervention in domestic politics
Q4: Which distinguished academic of genocide highlighted several other countries opposed to including political genocide in the Convention?
A4: William Schabas
Q5: What atrocity motivated a self-serving USSR to object to the provision of political killings drafted into the Convention?
A5: 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.

Q1: Which group was accused by the ECHR of having an overly constricted idea of the meaning of destruction in defining genocide?
A1: majority of legal scholars
Q2: What groups did the ECHR feel should be included as potential victims of genocide?
A2: national, racial, religious or ethnic
Q3: In 2007 what former case did the European Court of Human Rights draw on to further refine qualifiers of genocide?
A3: Jorgic v. Germany
Q4: What form of destruction was considered too limited by a smaller group of experts?
A4: 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.

Q1: Prior to being a formal legal term, how was the word "genocide" used in an indictment scenario?
A1: as a descriptive term
Q2: Who ultimately defined genocide as a series of strategies leading up to the annihilation of an entire group?
A2: Lemming
Q3: Lemming's concept of genocide triggered legal action in which realm?
A3: international relations and community
Q4: What was the nationality of anthropologist Peg LeVine?
A4: Australian
Q5: What relative term did LeVine coin to refer to cultural destruction, without the death of its members?
A5: "ritualcide"
Q6: What term was coined to describe the destruction of culture?
A6: ritualcide
Q7: What kind of scientist is Peg LeVine?
A7: anthropologist
Q8: What elements of group existence, other than people themselves, can be targets of genocide?
A8: 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.

Q1: What has been the primary focus in the study of genocide?
A1: legal aspect of the term
Q2: In prosecuting genocide, what must the act be formally acknowledged as?
A2: a crime
Q3: In a general aspect, what is genocide viewed as?
A3: the deliberate killing of a certain group
Q4: In trials of genocidal crimes, what responsibly party is difficult to prosecute?
A4: officials in power of a state or area
Q5: Long before genocide was established as a legal term, what treaty was in place to protect various groups from persecution and mass killings?
A5: the Peace of Westphalia
Q6: Why does genocide often go unpunished?
A6: genocide is more often than not committed by the officials in power
Q7: Who was the Peace of Westphalia designed to protect?
A7: ethnic, national, racial and in some instances religious groups
Q8: What year was the Peace of Westphalia signed?
A8: 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.

Q1: When was the word "genocide" first used?
A1: 1944
Q2: What is the etymology of the term "genocide"?
A2: The word genocide is the combination of the Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill).
Q3: What is the definition of genocide?
A3: 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
Q4: Who coined the term "genocide"?
A4: Raphael Lemkin
Q5: Who referred to acts of genocide in 1941?
A5: Winston Churchill
Q6: The word "genocide" was unknown until what year?
A6: 1944
Q7: In 1941, how did Winston Churchill refer to the mass killings of Russian prisoners of war?
A7: as "a crime without a name"
Q8: What was the name of the Polish-Jewish lawyer who first described Nazi atrocities as "genocide?"
A8: Raphael Lemkin
Q9: What is the etymological basis of the word "genocide?"
A9: Greek prefix geno- (meaning tribe or race) and caedere (the Latin word for to kill)
Q10: As it pertains to violent crimes against targeted groups, what is the ultimate motivation within the actions of genocide?
A10: 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]."

Q1: Several considerations were involved in meeting the requirement to determine what?
A1: when the targeted part is substantial enough
Q2: What is the key aspect of the targeted part of the group at the starting point of the inquiry?
A2: The numeric size
Q3: The number of people targeted in a genocide should not be solely evaluated by what?
A3: absolute terms
Q4: In addition to the numeric size of a targeted group, what other consideration was useful to the ICTY?
A4: 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."

Q1: The issue of what is raised by judges in Paragraph 13?
A1: perpetrators' access to the victims
Q2: What is the basis for suggesting that several factors regarding the activity of the perpetrators be considered?
A2: historical examples of genocide
Q3: The extent of what by the perpetrators was considered in an examination of their activity and level of control?
A3: possible extent of their reach
Q4: What will always be restricted in terms of a perpetrator's intent to destroy?
A4: the opportunity presented to him
Q5: While the factor cannot independently indicate if the targeted group is substantial, it can do what?
A5: 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.

Q1: On which date did the Genocide Convention become effective?
A1: 12 January 1951
Q2: What was the minimum number of countries necessary to form parties?
A2: 20
Q3: Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, how many were parties to the treaty?
A3: only two
Q4: What member ratified in 1970?
A4: the United Kingdom
Q5: The delay in support by certain powerful members meant the Convention was largely powerless for over how many decades?
A5: four
Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support for various reasons.

Q1: In 1998 it was written that the CPPCG was a legal entity resulting in which type of compromise?
A1: a diplomatic compromise
Q2: Rather than a definition, the text of the treaty is considered as what type of tool?
A2: a research tool
Q3: What does the treaty possess that others lack?
A3: international legal credibility
Q4: The writers Jonassohn and Bjornson cite various reasons for the lack of widespread support of what?
A4: alternative definitions
Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics have adjusted their focus to emphasise different periods and have found it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them interpret events. For example, Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied the whole of human history, while Leo Kuper and R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and Helen Fein, Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events. Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies, arguing that they are too expansive, and conclude that the academic discipline of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to build an academic paradigm.

Q1: What two writers examined the lack of an accepted and singular definition for genocide?
A1: Jonassohn and Björnson
Q2: The two writers suggested that academics adjusted what in their different definitions to assist them in interpreting events?
A2: their focus
Q3: What writer joined Jonassohn in the study of the whole of human history?
A3: Frank Chalk
Q4: With whom was Leo Kuper paired in research that focused on 20th century works?
A4: R. J. Rummel
Q5: Two women and what man concentrated on post World War II events?
A5: Ted Gurr
The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982 argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted, and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones states that the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide, and that there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.

Q1: Some historians were critical of what exclusion in the definition of victims of genocide?
A1: social and political groups
Q2: In what book did Kakar contend that the international definition of genocide was too narrow?
A2: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response
Q3: Kakar argued that the definition should include any group defined by the perpetrator and which other group?
A3: political groups
Q4: In the writing of Chalk and Jonassohn, what is stated to be a form of one-sided mass killing?
A4: Genocide
Q5: In further elaborating on the definition, how did Chalk and Jonassohn phrase the intention of the perpetrator?
A5: intends to destroy a group