In other words, to exactly the set of people for whom the accusation will never be verifiable, rendering it a vacuous accusation. In the case of US presidents, at least those since FDR, I believe you are effectively using the term as a synonym for “US President”. If you want to argue that schools should not be named after politicians, I can get on board with that.
Thanks to the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, every country in the world except the US has the right to charge a US president with war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. There are many countries that do not like us, so they could charge away. The reason they don’t is that the actions are rightly seen as aspects of coherent US policy, not as one individual’s aberrant behavior, and so are considered the province of treaty enforcement rather than criminal prosecution of an individual such as Obama.
I think strong criticism of the policies of the executive branch under Obama is more than justified, especially with respect to covert technologies, but concluding that Obama the individual is a war criminal is misleading hyperbole. I feel the same about the accusations against Bush (though less so about those against Rumsfeld et al who deliberately distorted evidence and misled the American people and the UN in order to start the war in Iraq - those actions probably do rise to the level of war crimes).
However, I think that Obama is a fundamentally good person, likewise the members of his administration (including Clinton) despite many of the polices they promulgated, and I prefer to apply the label “criminal” either to people actually convicted of crimes, or in a stretch to people of evidently bad character where the accusations are about personal behavior, rather than bad policy.
