It's not like 1984 at all. You're missing the important half of the equation. No one's (at an aggregate level) getting Room 101ed from it.
The CIA runs a global network of unaccountable torture prisons.
They once grounded (over Austria) and swatted the plane of a head of state flying from Moscow to Bolivia because they thought Snowden might be on it.
They don't use the power very often, but it is there when they want to, at any time.
Again, if the position is that the whole prosecution is unjust, a mockery of the First Amendment, chilling to journalism and free speech, then fine. But saying the US is responsible for the delay in putting him on trial is strange to me.
If one of our primary objectives as a liberal, democratic society is to avoid that kind of oppressive totalitarianism (as would be expected of a liberal democracy), then we have a duty to seek and employ the most effective strategy possible in avoiding that outcome.
Two things are required for the type of totalitarian surveillance described in 1984: the technological means and the will of the state to demand such evil acts be committed.
I'd argue that the best strategy to prevent an outcome that requires both means and will is to target the means. If the means exist, the state lacks only the will to utilize those means for evil ends (putting people in Room 101).
If the state lacks the means, then even once the will to do evil does inevitably come along, the state will be rightfully shackled and lack the requisite tools to enforce such tyranny.
Start a political party that has enough success to threaten the status quo. Be Assange. Be Snowden. Talk is cheap.