How many have you seen die because of a bottle of water, Muslims playing with their cellphones, an accidentally locked lavatory door, or any of the other miscellaneous absurd reasons that flights have been diverted just in the past few weeks? I'm guessing zero.

I think accoutability goes both ways. If you present a true risk to a flight (say, Richard Reid, or a violent and un-subduable passenger), then you should go to jail. But the whole point of my OP is that FAs/pilots/FAMs should also be accountable for their actions. When they divert for something that turns out not to be a threat, they should be held financially responsible for the decision in terms of impact on the airline and passengers. They'll still divert sometimes, because they are on the plane and don't want to die if they perceive a genuine threat. But at least there will be some "pushback" against the purely delusion/hysteria-driven diversions that have been happening left and right during the past month. So they'll only divert when they truly feel their life is in danger, instead of the ridiculousness that is going on now.

Anyway, this whole discussion is pretty moot for the various reasons etch5895 mentioned. I guess the status quo remains: when you get on a flight, there is essentially zero chance that a terrorist will affect your flight, but a nontrivial chance that an overzealous FA/pilot/FAM will.