A fourth plaintiff was shot but survived. The complaint is here.

The suit, stems from the September 16 shooting melee that reportedly killed 17 Iraqis and injured 24. The shootings occurred when Blackwater security guards were reportedly attempting to secure the square so that U.S. State Department officials could pass through it safely.

The lawsuit has been filed as both as a traditional “wrongful death” action and under the federal Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law that permits aliens to sue in U.S. courts for “violations of the law of nations.” The specific violations of international law alleged here are “extrajudicial killings” and “war crimes.”

I have an email into Blackwater USA seeking comment; I’ll post response when received.

Though the claim is not critical to the case, the suit alleges, among other things, that contracts between the government and Blackwater are prohibited by the Anti-Pinkerton Act, an 1893 law the bars the federal government from contracting with people employed by “the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization.” Lawyers have disagreed about whether that law has any application outside the context of strike-breaking, the situation that originally prompted its enactment. The statute is here.

The suit will evidently attempt to use one of Blackwater’s proudest claims against it. “Blackwater heavily markets the fact that it has never had any American official under its protection killed in Iraq,” it alleges. “Reasonable discovery will establish that Blackwater views its willingness to kill innocent people as a strategic advantage setting Blackwater apart from other security companies. Reasonable discovery will establish that Blackwater was and is willing to kill innocent bystanders in order to preserve that ‘no death’ statistic for marketing purposes. Blackwater benefits financially from its willingness to kill innocent bystanders.”

Whether or not Blackwater is really any worse than other private contractors, the case does get to the heart of the problem inherent in using private military forces as extensively as we have in Iraq. Whereas the official U.S. armed forces are tasked with carrying out the nation’s total mission there — which includes the political objective of winning over the hearts and minds of the populace — private contractors foreseeably will have a much narrower goal and purpose: protecting the client at any cost.

The plaintiffs are the estate of Himoud Saed Atban, who left seven children: Usama Fadhil Abbass, who left four; and Oday Ismail Ibraheem, who left three. The surviving plaintiff is Taleeb Mutlaq Deewan, who has four children, according to the complaint.

The suit is being handled by New York’s Center for Constitutional Rights and two small private firms, Burke O’Neil of Philadelphia and Akeel & Valentine of Birmingham, Michigan. The Center pioneered the modern-day use of the Alien Tort Statute in the late 1970s, and has had considerable experience and success with cases brought under it. At the same time, it often brings cases in part to achieve educational and political objectives — highlighting perceived injustices — apart from whether any actual monetary damages will ever be recovered.