The IMF and its agents could beat MI6 and its agents in a fight

1) Independence from oversight"The last time a POTUS tried to run his own private spy ring he was forced to resign"There's no evidence that the IMF answers directly to the President... For all we know the IMF could answer to the head of the CIA, as evidenced in 'Rogue Nation'. (See later link)"MI6 isnt as vulnerable to political fallout"In 'Skyfall' MI6 is literally investigated by a parliament judiciary committee on their failures to conduct their operations. Your claim that MI6 is not as vulnerable to the fallout of their actions is therefore completely false. "If you think for a minute that the IMF would survive long without congressional approval"In 'Rogue Nation' the entire IMF is disavowed by Congress yet they still manage to take down 'the Syndicate', an anti-IMF organization that was made by the UK government.https://en.wikipedia.org...So not only could the IMF survive for a lengthy period of time without congressional approval, they already HAVE proven that they can. When the IMF was disavowed by Congress, they still remained capable in bringing down an organization created by the British that tried to defeat the IMF. Therefore it is very plausible that a disavowed IMF could beat MI6, and thats assuming the IMF gets disavowed in the first place. "after initial hostilities, the public record will show that British servicemen were engaged by non-state actors"Con keeps trying to paint a conflict between the IMF and MI6 to make it seem like the ONLY possibility for a fight to start is if the IMF attacked first, but its NOT the only possibility.... Its more then possible that the IMF was fired upon first by MI6 which led to the conflict between them. Also, if con knew anything about how governments work, he would know that the actions of the spy agencies of governments are not immediately, if ever, listed on public records. 'the U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED!'Just because the US doesnt WANT to be involved in a situation, that doesnt mean that they CANT be involved. The US is involved in many situations that it does not otherwise want to be involved in, yet the US still involves itself in those situations because they have some sort of asset or interest at stake. If the IMF is the only feasible option the US has in defending a very valuable asset from MI6, it doesnt matter if the US doesnt want to be connected with the IMF, they would still work with the IMF to defend the asset at risk. 2) Constitutionality"Every single one of those measures you named are not / no longer secret and were sanctioned by elected officials in all three branches of the US govt. "Yet they still exist, so your argument is moot :)"All are susceptible to Congressional oversight and are considered legal by US courts. "If borderline unconstitutional acts are still considered legal by US courts and allowed to continue, then the IMF by extension would also be allowed to continue even if its constitutionality was questioned, since many other things that are argued to be unconstitutional still function..."The US must do everything it can to remain publicly hidden from the IMF"Except they don't, thats simply your opinion which is not backed by any facts, reasoning, or evidence. Summary:1 - The IMF can receive far better funding from the US than MI6 has from the UK2 - MI6 does not have a recruiting advantage over the IMF3 - The IMF works close with the US government like MI6 does with the UK government4 - IMF agents operate as teams in the field whereas MI6 agents routinely go solo. 5 - The IMF has shown that it can operate even without the backing of its government, whereas MI6 has not6 - The IMF can keep its actions discrete from the US better than MI6 can from the UKAnd most importantly7 - The IMF has previously defeated UK-created spy agencies even when the IMF was disavowed by CongressTherefore the IMF would beat MI6 in a fightVote Pro