I took the "we" to be "we as US citizens", but even without that, a Spanish court under the principle of universal jurisdiction famously indicted Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity. Pinochet was then arrested in the UK.
In that same link you'll see mention that "In March 2009, Baltasar Garzón, Spain's most high-profile judge at the time, invoked the principle of universal jurisdiction to investigate six former Bush administration officials for allegedly giving legal cover to torture committed at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."
So in principle a court in, say, Switzerland could indict the US president for war crimes and attempt to prosecute it.
Thus, I still think the definitional interpretation you gave is incorrect.
That's lead to worries "that Spain's judicial system was being hijacked by activist judges pursuing a political agenda. " http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4149/spain-universal-juris... (Kissinger, of course, doesn't like this idea one bit.)
In that same link you'll see mention that "In March 2009, Baltasar Garzón, Spain's most high-profile judge at the time, invoked the principle of universal jurisdiction to investigate six former Bush administration officials for allegedly giving legal cover to torture committed at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."
So in principle a court in, say, Switzerland could indict the US president for war crimes and attempt to prosecute it.
Thus, I still think the definitional interpretation you gave is incorrect.