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

1) Level of secrecy I find it hilarious that someone would actually try to argue that an agency that is allowed to conduct operations with more freedom from its government oversight is somehow supposed to be a weakness... "Especially in the aftermath of Gitmo water boarding and the Eric Snowden leaks"First off, MI6 is just as susceptible to a hypothetical whistleblower shining a light on their actions than the IMF does, if not even more so, since MI6 answers to the government and the public more than the IMF has to... If MI6 engaged in the exact same operations that the IMF engaged in where some whistle-blower blew their cover, MI6 would feel far more pressure from the UK government to cease their actions and play by the rules set by the UK government than the IMF would feel from the US, on account of how little control Congress actually has over the IMF, as evidenced in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation. This gives the IMF more freedom to conduct its missions the way it wants without government interference than MI6 otherwise could. "we could expect that an attack on Mi6 is also an attack on the United Kingdom"Not really. A fight between the IMF and MI6 could very well be fought in a neutral area in the Middle East simply because the objectives of both agencies conflict with each other. One side's mission may be to support a Middle East regime at all costs, the other agencies objective might be to depose the regime. That would bring the IMF and MI6 into conflict with one another without it having to be the IMF attacking the UK." 'fighting dirty' only gives more political clout for why the U.S. Government would never assist the IMF in a struggle against MI6 and the UK." The IMF gives the US the ability to fight battles and accomplish objectives that the US government themselves does not want to be caught involved in. If the IMF is defending a significant US asset that MI6 wants to terminate, than the US would very feasibly be willing to support the IMF, since the US government has an extensive history in secretly fighting proxy wars (Arming the Mujahadeen against the USSR, Arming Saddam against Iran, Arming Iran against Saddam, bombing Thailand and Cambodia during the Vietnam War, etc.) A struggle between the IMF and MI6 wouldnt mean the US would not support the IMF and cut off their funding. 2) Ghost Protocol is 'unconstitutional'"what's to stop MI6 from finding out and leaking this info to the American public at large?"The Patriot Act is arguably unconstitutional yet it still exists, the mass collection of info by the NSA is also arguably unconstitutional yet that still continues, Guantanamo and the activites that took place inside it are also arguably unconstitutional yet Guantanamo is still in operation, you could even argue that the drone strikes the US carries out in Pakistan and Yemen constitutes war crimes, but guess what, they still going on.... If the IMF is 'unconstitutional', its entire existence could be made known to the world, but that wouldn't mean it would lead to the organization getting shut down on the spot, since so many other things that are considered by many to be 'unconstitutional' is still in operation more than 10 years later3) Organizational depth"MI6 typically works close in hand and can recruit from the Ministry of Defense and other elite organizations, especially the SAS"In Mission Impossible 3, some agents of the IMF have a front as employees of the Virginia Department of Transportation. This indicates that the IMF also works close with the Government and can recruit agents from US elite organizations, such as the CIA, FBI, or other military branches. https://en.wikipedia.org..."in a prolonged conflict, MI6 would have a recruiting & operating advantage to fill in their ranks"Except there is evidence that indicates that the IMF works closely with agencies of the US the same way MI6 works closely with the UK to recruit agents.I extend all other arguments.