Openness and Democracy

So, I've decided I need to weigh in on the topic of the day, Wikileaks. (I know it doesn't have anything to do with IT, but it fits with the spirit of this blog). Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, and the many "leakers" believe that Wikileaks is doing a very good thing. There are, however, many detractors that say Wikileaks is an "enemy of democracy". 
The argument against Wikileaks is that (A. There was no grand information shared and (B. By this stuff leaking, the government is reversing its "openness".
First, it may not have been big, top secret type information. It may not have affected things, in the grand scheme. Funny thing is, if it had leaked and the government just acknowledged it and moved on, it would have been just that, no big deal. Leaks are going to happen, if you react to them well, they can help you. If you react to them badly, well, we can see how that works out. But the type of information leaked isn't really what I have the problem with. No, the issue I have is that these leaks somehow reversed the policy of transparency and openness the government was working on. See, this information that was leaked was given to mid-level soldiers, not civilians. That's not openness. I haven't seen one bit of openness in the government since that promise was made. That's like the CEO of a company saying he's going to share information with his customers and then give them to the middle managers instead. The government hasn't gotten any more open with who matters most, the people. All they've done is allow some slightly-lower-ranking than before soldiers access some information that doesn't matter. I would argue that Wikileaks is helping democracy by giving access of information to the people yes, the people. If a government is not willing to let the people have information, important information, then it is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy that shuffles figureheads around every few years. Wikileaks is just trying to make the U.S. the democracy it has always claimed it was.