I don't think the Government seeks to make this a lockdown permanent and felicitate any kind of suppression. There's a provision for government the and the place can continue to have it's own powers, just that it can't become bigger than the country itself, which had become the norm.
The context does justify certain restraining measures. What sort of argument is it that claims if you're wrapping someone in a blanket in the summer, it's a crime, not looking at the fact that the person is burning? You have to take certain measures till the situation calms down and people come to the level of responding instead of reacting. If this becomes a constant thing like for years or decades like the two bills had become, then yes, I see your concern. A temporal restrain cannot be exaggerated to "war crimes".
It's curbing freedom of speech just as much if it is a security measure. The pretext, however valid it might be, doesn't alter the essential character of the act. Of course, calling a location “terrorist, separatist, and rebel” because there happen to be terrorists, separatists, and/or rebels in it, and using that to justify suppressive policy targeting the region as a whole is a sure sign of the mindset of—even if the suppressive policies don't yet reach the level of—collective punishment, a war crime in the context of interstate war and a crime against humanity otherwise.