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

"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" I find it even more amusing that someone would try to defend the existence of a top secret group of paramilitary assassins answerable only to the President and funded by the American taxpayer (and immune to all forms of government oversight and lawful persecution) would somehow be politically feasible to the American public at large. In the real-world (not Hollywood) which this scenario is built on, IMF -upon discovery- would be disavowed immediately by the Executive Branch and branded a terrorist organization, or the President himself would face immediate impeachment. In fact, the last time a POTUS tried to run his own private spy ring he was forced to resign in disgrace: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (Nixon&Watergate). "MI6 is just as susceptible to a hypothetical whistleblower shining a light on their actions than the IMF does, since MI6 answers to the government and the public more than the IMF has to" No. MI6 is not as vulnerable to political fallout precisely because MI6 already answers to the government and enjoys far greater awareness from the public than IMF does. The whole reason why IMF is so extremely more secretive than MI6 in the first place is because IMF engages in covert activities that are too politically risky for the U.S. government to even acknowledge, let alone assume. MI6 operations & the British govt do not have this same problem, seeing as how anything revealed by MI6 was already likely sanctioned through government oversight, procedures, other branches of govt, and ultimately backed by public policy and elected officials."on account of how little control Congress actually has over the IMF, as evidenced in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation." Precisely why your politics suck. If you think for a minute that the IMF would survive long without congressional approval in the real world of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Waterboarding, Warrantless Wiretapping, NSA Surveillance, CIA Drone Strikes, Clinton emails, Wiki Leaks and Eric Snowden, think again! Reality is on your way."A fight between the IMF and MI6 could very well be fought in a neutral area" Ima misses the point here. MI6 is a publicly acknowledged department of Her Majesty's Government. IMF and its people in comparison, are not officially associated with the U.S. or any other country- they can't afford to. And after initial hostilities (MI6 vs IMF battle), the public record will show that British servicemen were engaged by non-state actors. The UK can therefore be expected to respond in kind with all out military force to defend its servicemen. "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... than the US would very feasibly be willing to support the IMF" No, because your second quote is a flip-flop to the first quote above. Remember, the U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED!"The Patriot Act is arguably unconstitutional" 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. All are susceptible to Congressional oversight and are considered legal by US courts. "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." No. The evidence suggests that IMF does not work the same way MI6 does. IMF is not officially supported by the U.S. govt and cannot possibly call on the same level of assistance from their govt as MI6 does - especially without assuming grave risk to US national interests. The US must do everything it can to remain publicly hidden from the IMF or risk political catastrophe.