I'm kind of aghast that a guy as intelligent as Glenn Greenwald wrote that article.
Loughner, Lanza, Holmes, Harris and Klebold -- all of their crimes were characterized by mentally unhinged shooters - and their descent into mentally deranged violence was seen by a lot of people. Tsarnaev's not so much. In Dzhokhar's case, he was universally described as normal and likable. People never saw it coming
Loughner, Lanza, Holmes, Harris and Klebold -- in three of these events, the people killed themselves at the scene (Lanza, Klebold, Harris). Two of the other people never even bothered to leave the scene (Holmes, Loughner). In the Tsarnaev's case, they almost seamlessly blended back into the crowds. And were on the lam for at least a couple of days. But they were tripped up by pervasive video technology.
Loughner, Lanza, Holmes, Harris and Klebold -- none of their crimes appeared to be striking out in the name of an ideology, nor were they affiliated with a group that advocated violence. Tamaran Tsarnaeve did start to embrace militant islam in 2009. He was flagged by Russia as possible associating with extremist groups. He posted terrorist videos to his Youtube account.
Loughner, Lanza, Holmes, Harris and Klebold --the effect of their atrocities was not to shut down an entire town and have people fearing of where they would strike next. The Tsarnaev's had Boston paralyzed for almost a week. That is almost the definition of terrorist intent.
Dzhokhar is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But it is laughable to say it in any other context.