Okay, it's an old discussion but becomes more relevant with each new change (although I don't want this to be an old vs. new SW argument at all). The Sith are known for being treacherous and for their lies. I would have thought that the Jedi would be truthful.

Given the films as they are at the moment (as in all current changes intact), who has lied and who has told the truth? For the purposes of this, if something has to be looked at from a 'certain point of view' to be true then it is a lie. If it is a lie on the surface, it is a lie. If it is misleading, through lack of information that implies something else, it is a lie. If there are good reasons to lie (like Yoda testing Luke) it's still a lie. Yep, I know that's all open to interpretation but I'm just curious where this gets me.

I'll start off the top of my head with some obvious ones but I'd appeciate some help here.

Jedi Lies

Ben telling Luke that Vader killed his father - LIE
Yoda pretending not to be Yoda - LIE

Sith Truths

Vader telling Luke he is his father -TRUE
Dooku tellin Obi-Wan the entire plot of Ep1 and 2 - TRUE

Of course the Sith truths are sort of balanced out by the mammoth amount of deception by Palpatine in the PT but, hey, it's just for fun. See what you can come up with.

Dogg.

Man, the whole Jedi thing is a tissue of lies. I mean they are supposed to keep the peace but they agree to lead a war. They are supposed to allow themselves to be tools of the force to support life and positive growth, but they control and direct it for destruction just as much as the Sith do. They support a system of thinly-veiled monarchies and a deeply corrupt republic which turns a blind eye to slavery and other abuses. The Empire, with all its flaws, at least seems to have done away with slavery, and in its political and military system advancement is based on merit, and not on elitism and monarchy, which is what the rebellion seems to want to restore.

Jedi are hypocrites, and the rebellion is even worse.

Hmmm. I haven't read the non-movie bits of the canon, so I know nothing of Trandoshans on Kashyyyk. Same regarding Chewie. As for the Republic's supporting monarchy, sure, it's a Galactic Republic, but what about its member worlds? All we hear of is Queen this and Count that. Sure, Naboo is a constitutional monarchy with a 'queen' who is supposedly voted into office, but both of the Naboo queens seem to be a bit young to have been elected by an informed and intelligent electorate based on a candidate's political savvy and years of good service. I wouldn't be surprised if there was not some corruption and trickery in that political system - are candidates elected or selected by an elite? We don't know. As far as I can see, the best interpretation that you could assign to it, given that we just don't know for sure how it works, is that it is an office filled by means of a lottery - that would explain the youth of the queens. On other worlds, how can we be certain that monarchical and feudal titles are bestowed in a democratic manner, rather than by the more common method of heredity?

Then we come to the Rebel Alliance. Who elected Mon Mothma? Who elected Leia Princess of Alderaan? Who gave Leia the right to bestow medals on her closest friends? Don't the folks in the Alliance see a slight conflict of interest there? The whole Princess Leia thing reminds me more of an Arthurian romantic ideal of feudal monarchy rather than an enlightened democratic state, and the way the script talks of these characters (at least in the original trilogy) doesn't disabuse me of my doubts. Finally, what mandate does the Rebel Alliance have for its resistance to the Empire? Do the residents of Coruscant want their empire to be overthrown? It's all well and good bringing freedom to worlds suffering under the imperial yoke, but did they canvass support in every world they decided to 'liberate'? Heck, on Endor they pulled the same trick that Captain Cook pulled on the Hawaiians - they pretended that one of them was a god so that they could get the unquestioning loyalty of the native Ewok population. This leads to mass slaughter of that native population and we're supposed to be happy?

The whole thing stinks if you ask me.

But all of this can be interpreted as rationalization. Sure, those may be the real reasons for the Alliance's actions, but the movies never expressly say this. Sure, we're meant to just accept that viewpoint, but it could be simply propaganda. Also, you don't go into the Ewok episode, which is the most blatantly anti-democratic aspect that the movies show of the Alliance. My question is this: if you don't practice democracy when you're in the process of winning a republic, how do you transition from what is in essence a military dictatorship into a democracy? Questionable means have a way of becoming questionable ends.

Not entirely true. Palpatine was given supreme executive power by the senate. What he did was entirely legal. Sure, he manipulated the exchange of power, but it was given to him freely based on faulty information. He never seized power undemocratically. By a completely democratic method, he was given the means to destroy the democratric process. This is why democratic institutions such as a senate, a parliament, a workers soviet, an anarchist commune, or a house of representatives should never cede supreme executive power to a single person - even in times of war. Such action is inherently undemocratic even if it's done democratically.

Who said he did? No one suggested that Palpatine is content to let the democratic process work unassisted by influence peddling. My point was only that he got to be chancellor through the democratic process. No representative democracy works directly based on the people's unadulterated will. It is a game of influence. Nothing Palpatine did in the first two movies was illegal. His election and the emergency powers act that followed was completely in line with representative democracy's standard process. A similar process (an emergency powers act) happened in the US after 9/11, and for similar reasons.