I would definitely revise my initial take on this if:
i)Purser made a threat to tamper with a crew meal
ii)Purser referred to the remaining FA's as "her" crew
iii)Purser tried to interfere with the chain-of-command(ie,refused a reasonable order/refused to stand down/attempted to take "her" crew with her at MIA)
Like many,I may have rushed to judgement.I saw it as a simple spat that escalated unnecessarily.If theres any truth to (i),(ii) or (iii) then I would say he was justified in removing her asap,except for (ii) alone in which case the CA should give her every opportunity to retract.If she doesnt retract,then it would require a stand-down and if that failed,a diversion would be justified.Diversion for mutiny(direct or indirect)is of course justifiable.If (i) is true,then legally it could be labelled a "terrorist" act and perhaps that explains why the FAA havent tried anything because they know "legally" he may well have been right to characterize her actions as "terrorism".But how do you prove something like that?Theres the rub.You'd need it on tape or a corroborating witness.Very difficult.