Freud and Jack Bauer

Freud would certainly see Jack Bauer as an interesting character. He would agree that Bauer conforms to the traditional gender role of the man as a protector and problem solver. He gets things done, his team sees him as a leader. He is expected to be proactive and to do whatever it takes to get the job done.
But he is not perfect; he is having marital troubles and could be having an affair with a coworker. Perhaps Freud would see these issues as signs of a repressed memory; maybe Bauer experienced something traumatic as a small child that made him feel inadequate, and thus overcompensates at his job in order to prove himself worthy, sacrificing his relationships with his family in the process.
Perhaps Freud could assume that Jack is fixated in the anal stage (occurring in children around age 2-3; as their parents toilet train them, they fight for control over their bodies, as well as their first main conflict with the id and the ego). Now in his 40s, Jack is fighting for control of his own life: his daughter is disobeying him, he and his wife are having problems, and at work he must deal with large amounts of stress and secrecy. In order to regain a sense of self-worth, he pushes all his energy in his work.

Habermas and Ghosts of Rwanda

First, Habermas would discuss whether Ghosts of Rwanda was a part of the public sphere, and I think he would agree that it is. According to his article, he writes that the public sphere is "... a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed" (49). The documentary aired on PBS, which reaches millions of Americans every day. While not every home owns a television, a vast majority do. PBS also functions based on public donations - it exists from philanthropy alone. Thus, the public has a very active role in making PBS what it is, as it is not a private corporation seeking large profit.
PBS also represents a public body. As Habermas writes, "citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion - that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions" (49). PBS chose knowledgeable people to discuss the events of the Rwandan genocide; ones who are not afraid to ask difficult questions and give thought-provoking answers - in particular, Carl Wilkens, the "last American in Rwanda," who frequently asks why the United States didn't come to Rwanda's aid.
Habermas later notes that "the public sphere [i]s a sphere which mediates between society and state" (50). PBS does this by frequently criticizing and inquiring the USA's foreign policy during the genocide. Both average American citizens and American politicians are given equal screen time in the documentary, each giving their opinion, which allows viewers a balanced perspective.
In the end, PBS - or, more specifically, the Frontline staff - acts as an arbiter between the different voices of Americans in Rwanda during the genocide of 1994, allowing the public to take in the information and create their own opinions.